Recently in "Islamophobia" Category

AbuHamza.jpgAdviser to the British State


Predictably, Abu Hamza told these witless dhimmis that "radicalization" is caused by various alleged enormities that the kuffar have committed -- such that if they take his advice, they will curtail the freedom of speech and bring British foreign policy into conformity with the Islamic agenda. The MP's, for their part, decided that tacking "Islamophobia" would prevent "radicalization" -- so in essence, if they show the Islamic supremacists that they're doing nothing to resist the jihad or even identify it as such, that in itself will stop the jihad in its tracks.

Meanwhile, focusing on the "Internet" as a cause of "radicalization" is like focusing on magazines as a cause of pornography.

One wonders how these MP's successfully feed themselves.

"Internet biggest breeding ground for violent extremism, ministers warn," by Alan Travis for The Guardian, February 5 (thanks to Warren):

The internet now plays a part in most, if not all, cases of violent radicalisation and is a more significant recruiting ground than prisons, universities or places of worship, according to report by a cross-party group of MPs published today.

The Commons home affairs committee says internet service providers need to be as effective at removing material that promotes violent extremism as they are in removing content that is sexual or breaches copyright....

The report stresses, however, that no single pathway leads to radicalisation and emphasises that direct, personal contact is also significant. It adds that although convicted terrorists have attended British universities and prisons there is seldom evidence that they were radicalised there. The report says recruitment activities have retreated to private homes as the authorities have targeted public arenas.

The MPs, however, heard in private an assessment from Charles Farr, the Home Office's head of the Office of Security and Counter-terrorism, that "sympathy for violent extremism is declining rather than increasing". The MPs contrast this with the situation in 2007 when MI5 said there were "at least 2,000 people" in the UK who posed a threat because they supported terrorism – a figure that had increased by 400 the previous year.

The MPs do conclude that there may be growing support for nonviolent extremism within the Muslim community, fed by feelings of alienation and a sense of grievance, and this is a challenge for society and the police.

They are not allowed (by the strictures of political correctness) to consider the possibility that there might be growing support for "nonviolent extremism" for reasons arising from core Muslim beliefs.

They recommend that tackling Islamophobia and demonstrating that the British state is not antithetical to Islam should constitute a big part of the official Prevent strategy designed to counter the ideology that feeds violent radicalisation.

The MPs talked to the radical preacher Abu Hamza in the maximum security unit at Belmarsh prison in London, who told them the main drivers of radicalisation were grievances, especially concerning Palestine and Afghanistan, a sense that the prophet was being mocked, guilt and capability.

He said unemployment was not a source of grievance.

Keith Vaz MP, the committee's Labour chairman, said: "The conviction last week of four men from London and Cardiff radicalised over the internet, for a plot to bomb the London stock exchange and launch a Mumbai-style atrocity on the streets of London, shows that we cannot let our vigilance slip. More resources need to be directed to these threats and to preventing radicalisation through the internet and in private spaces. These are the fertile breeding grounds for terrorism."

| 34 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Be sure to listen in tonight: "Fired For Islamophobia — on The Jamie Glazov Show," and hear about how and why the Daily Kos said, "So long, Eric":

Join the Jamie Glazov Show on Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 8-9 pm Pacific (11-12 pm EST) on Blog Talk Radio. This week’s guests are:

Eric Allen Bell, a regular blogger for the “Daily Kos” — where he was recently banned for the crime of writing three articles that ran afoul of the mindset there, specifically naming “Loonwatch.com” as a “terrorist spin control network.” He is currently producing a documentary entitled “Not Welcome” that is about the backlash against construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque in America’s Bible Belt.

and

Dr. Tim Furnish, an author and Muslim world analyst who holds a PhD in Islamic history from Ohio State and who learned Arabic in the US Army; his areas of expertise are Islamic eschatology, Mahdism, sects and transnational movements. He has lectured at Joint Special Operations University, the Army War College, Ben Gurion University and the annual Mahdism Conference in Iran.

To read Robert Spencer’s report on the developments surrounding Eric Bell’s firing at the Daily Kos, click here.

To listen to the program, click here.

Or go to: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/radio-jihad/2012/02/01/the-jamie-glazov-show

Phone in #: (347) 857-1380

See you Tuesday night!

| 49 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

We should stop using Muslims' self-chosen word – “Islamophobia” – by which they paint themselves into a corner of being feared: it destroys communication. Instead of such a divisive term, we should insert a more approachable and factual word that preserves opportunities for bridge-building and learning: “Islamonausea.” This does not render communication impossible, but enables visitors to our Western cultures to notice aspects of their behavior that make us sick.

It's no wonder that Muslims use the word “Islamophobia” so often. Lacking convincing arguments, charm or constructive contributions to their surroundings, being feared is the only way to gain at least some kind of respect. The term Islamophobia, fear of Islam, points to what Muslims want, not to what non-Muslims feel. Who is afraid of Islam, anyway?

“Xenophobia,” an irrational fear of that which is strange or foreign, also doesn't work. Aversion to Islam doesn't come from unfamiliarity with the religion; in fact, it's quite the opposite. There’s no reason to fear being called a racist, either, since neither Islam nor Muslims are a race.

Our language needs a term that describes what many critically thinking people feel about Islam according to their own terms, not according to what Muslims wish us to feel or what the PC establishment diagnoses to scare us into allowing more voters for the Left into our countries. We need a term that simultaneously invites Muslims to realize what they need to change about their behavior and religion if they wish to advance from an embarrassing last place in the evolution of civilizations and to earn some real respect among the world community.

Natural reaction

As in many other nauseating situations, Islamonausea is a normal and natural reaction to something abnormal, not vice versa.

The nausea reflex is innate, and it is biologically natural and healthy to experience emotional and bodily discomfort with anything that is unpleasant, unhealthy or harmful.

There is nothing phobic or racist in feeling nausea when hearing about the Islamic massacres performed by Muhammad and his many devout copycats through history and all over the world today. The same goes for Muhammad's sexual relationship with a nine-year old girl, and the cutting off of limbs and stonings in the name of Allah and his Sharia laws.

Thinking of Muslims’ epidemic practice of forced inbreeding (which damages intelligence and increases the risk of psychiatric diseases) -- often many generations in a row -- one may also experience unpleasant feelings in the abdomen. There is also no shame in feeling nausea when hearing about the extreme social control, violence and murderous examples made to keep and scare hundreds of millions of their women from enjoying their human rights to chose their own sexual partners, clothing and lifestyle.

The many calls for hatred, violence and killing of non-Muslims commanded by the faultless Koran are outright disgusting. Imagining the pinnacle of evolution being a planet-sized Islamic caliphate is not only a complete embarrassment to the human race; it may also make one lose one's appetite.

Examples

The word Islamonausea can be used to describe a feeling of nausea, disgust, displeasure, discomfort or aversion that arises by itself when encountering Islam or Islamic culture, or whatever or whoever represents it.

Examples of use of the word: "I'm not afraid of Islam, I have Islamonausea." "I do not want minarets in my town. They give me Islamonausea." "They got Islamonausea from all the Muslim immigrants and decided to move to another neighbourhood." "Reading the Koran gives me Islamonausea." "He got Islamonausea and decided to quit his job at the prison." "I get Islamonausea hearing about all those honor killings." "I get Islamonausea at the thought of eating Halal." "I get Islamonausea seeing all those Muslims hopping up and down and shooting in the air, trying to scare us into respecting their childish behaviour."

Prevalence

The first use of the word that I have been able to trace, is from 7 July 2005, in a comment on this website, Jihadwatch.org.

Here, a person calling himself Sheik Canuck, writes in a comment to an article on Muslims' positive reaction to the Islamic suicide bombings in London that same day:

"I don't have islamophobia, I have islamoNausea, I'm sick of them all."

The first time it occurred in a Danish newspaper was in a letter by this writer in Nordjyske Stiftstidende on December 30th 2011, entitled "We have nausea."

The term attracted some attention when the comedian, atheist and Islam critic Pat Condell used it in a video from 2009 called "Apologists for evil."

Islamonausea deserves its own article on Wikipedia. Help get Islamonausea into our dictionaries by using the word on blogs, in articles and in Letters to the Editor, and in everyday speech.

| 38 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

I am not in favor of laws restricting the freedom of speech, but this response from the OIC is consistent with its own attempts to restrict truth-telling about Islam and jihad under the guise of criminalizing "religious hatred." Note also that by labeling the French law an example of "Islamophobia," Ihsanoglu is tacitly admitting that the Armenian genocide was an Islamic jihad action; otherwise, what would Islam have to do with this law at all?

"OIC: Adoption of genocide law sign of Islamophobia in France," by A. Taghiyeva for Trend, January 24:

The adoption of the law criminalizing the denial of the so-called "Armenian Genocide" is a sign of Islamophobia in France, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu told Trend on Tuesday.

"This law contradicts three fundamental principles of democracy -- equality, freedom and brotherhood. It is a sign of growing Islamophobia," Ihsanoglu said.

He called the law unacceptable, non-complying with historical facts and demonstrating double standards.

After a nearly eight-hour debate, the French Senate adopted the bill. Some 127 senators voted in favor, while 86 senators voted against on Jan.23.

The lower house of the French parliament adopted a bill criminalising the denial of the so-called "genocide" on Dec.22. Some 45 out of 577 French MPs voted with 38 voting for and seven against the adoption of the bill.

The bill demands a year's imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euro for denying the so-called "genocide." In response to the decision, Turkey announced that it has frozen all diplomatic relations with France.

MPs from the French president's Union for Popular Movement (UMP) party, which has the parliamentary majority, proposed the bill aimed at criminalising the denial of the so-called "genocide" to the legislative committee of the National Assembly in early December.

Armenia and the Armenian lobby claim that the predecessor of the Turkey - Ottoman Empire had committed the 1915 genocide against the Armenians living in Anadolu, and achieved recognition of the "Armenian Genocide" by the parliaments of several countries.

| 28 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Recently two extraordinary articles have appeared at the Daily Kos -- extraordinary because, to the rage and dismay of many of that site's commenters and regular readers -- they depart from the standard Leftist line that Islamic jihad violence has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, even if jihadists invoke Islamic texts and teachings to justify that violence, and that only greasy Islamophobes think otherwise.

The articles are "Loonwatch.com and Radical Islam" and "How and Why Loonwatch.com is a Terrorist Spin Control Network," both by Eric Allen Bell, who is so far from being a "right-wing Islamophobe" that he made a documentary about the "Islamophobia" supposedly being suffered by the proponents of a huge new mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee -- and is far enough to the Left to get space to write at the Daily Kos.

Yet Bell had the intellectual honesty to make this entirely true observation about the hate and defamation site that is the subject of his pieces: "But for LoonWatch.com any criticism of the Koran or of violent Jihad - even those criticisms that might have some legitimacy to them - even of radical Islam, are branded as Islamophobia and anyone who dares to raise questions about the nearly constant acts of Jihad going on increasingly around the world today is labeled a 'Loon' - thus the title of their blog, LoonWatch.com."

Since I am the subject of obsessive attention at Loonwatch, I am mentioned in the original article as well as in the followup, which Bell wrote after Islamic supremacists and their Leftist tools rounded upon him with predictable and ludicrous charges that he is a right-wing anti-Muslim bigot. I have a few disagreements with his view of me and of the jihad threat in general. He says I have some kind of religious agenda here, which anyone who reads this site will know is false. While I am a religious believer, Jihad Watch is not a religious apologetics site, but a non-sectarian site seeking to provide the context for a broad coalition of people of all perspectives -- atheists, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims of conscience -- who are threatened by Islamic jihad. He dismissively distances himself from my colleague Pamela Geller, ignoring her courageous and pioneering work in, among many other things, raising awareness about the human rights abuses in Islamic law, such as honor killing and the death penalty for apostasy. And he seems to be a bit credulous in accepting the smooth deceptions of Muslim Brotherhood-linked forces behind the building of many mega-mosques around the country, and about the stealth jihad in general.

Nonetheless, I was intrigued by Bell's capacity for independent thought, which is such a rare commodity these days, and willingness to acknowledge that there is a problem within Islam, which is even rarer, so I sent him a note, telling him: "I predict that you will not find anyone on the Left who will be willing to consider the 'correlation between some of the violent passages in the Koran and the Hadiths and many of the acts of brutality being carried out by radical Muslims in the world' [that's a quote from one of his Kos pieces]. However, I do not now and never have considered my work 'right-wing': if defending civilized values against institutionalized violence and religiously justified savagery is 'right-wing,' the Left has a great deal to answer for."

I got this email back from Eric Allen Bell, and he has kindly allowed me to publish it here:

Mr. Spencer -

Very good to hear from you. I made a short documentary called "Not Welcome" (http://www.NotWelcomeDocumentary.com) regarding the backlash against construction of a mosque in Murfreesboro, TN. What inspired me to make that film was the same feeling I have now about what is going on in the greater Islamic world. It was my conscience - a sense of justice.

That said, in the process I absorbed a whole lot of information from traditionally liberal sources. I have only recently come around to a hopefully more expansive point of view. When I finally read one of your books for the first time, I kept waiting for the part where you would prove yourself to be a "Loon" so that I could stop reading, but that never happened :)

I watched the documentary, "Islam: What the West Needs to Know" and wanted so badly to prove wrong what I had seen and heard - but I could not. This was not only humbling but it has caused me to really rethink and rethink the possibility that perhaps the truth is not politically correct.

And more is still being revealed. When I made "Not Welcome" most of the arguments against Islam I heard among the people of Murfreesboro, TN were religiously motivated. People would actually say to me that "America is a Christian nation" and they believed it said this in the Bible. The leaders of the movement were Christian Zionists. It was ugly, and yet their concerns were not entirely unfounded.

So I decided to keep the focus of the film on America and look for ways to convey a message about what I perceive to be a real enemy at home. At that time I did not perceive a real threat to America in the way of "creeping Sharia" and so I left that alone.

But as I watch with great disappointment the developments that have followed the so-called "Arab Spring" I am very, very concerned. Islamism is clearly on the rise, they have weapons, they are not rational and I am concerned.

It means a lot to me to hear from you directly like this. I apologize if in fact I have mis-characterized where you are coming from. In my own defense, the anti-mosque crowd in Murfreesboro, TN were a very nasty bunch - and they love JihadWatch ;) So, perhaps I wrongly judged you by some of them, and if that is the case I am very sorry. I will continue to read your blog and continue to research.

I admire your courage and conviction in being one of the only truth tellers out there about the dangers of Islam, your willingness to use your name and put your picture on your blog, your fearlessness in posting the Mohammed cartoon.

Please feel free to contact me anytime. My sense is that this war of words with Loonwatch (who now have several Islamic websites backing them up and putting my name out on the street) has only just begun.

Peace,

Eric Allen Bell

On a related note, Loonwatch's chief figure, "Danios," has just passed up no fewer than four separate opportunities to debate me -- three hosted at universities and one on ABN -- despite his years of bravado and false claims that I was ducking him. He claimed he wanted to debate the laughable thesis that Judaism and Christianity are just as violent as Islam -- as if armed terror groups worldwide were justifying killing people by quoting the words of Moses and Jesus, killing apostates from Judaism and Christianity, boasting about the imminent conquest and subjugation of non-Jewish and non-Christian lands, etc.

But although I was agreeable and he was full of false bluster about how I was avoiding debating him, ultimately he was too afraid to step up and actually agree to a debate. And I don't really mind, for while it would have been satisfying to defeat him, I doubt anyone would have been enlightened by a couple of hours of him calling me fat, ugly, stupid, and evil, which Reza Aslan-like spittle is essentially all that he and his site can muster in response to the truths I present. They can't actually refute them.

| 173 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us


Rainn Wilson raises awareness about "Islamophobia"

The clownish boy and deceptive Islamic supremacist Reza Aslan is becoming more comic all the time: now he's giving a talk about "Islamophobia" in collaboration with an actual comedian, as opposed to the unintentional comedian that he himself is. Rainn Wilson, who plays Dwight on the situation comedy/mockumentary The Office, is appearing with Reza at an event about "forcing kids to grow up learning that a certain religion is evil or should be hated."

No, Wilson and Aslan don't mean Islamic leaders who preach on TV that "Jews are a cancer in the body of planet Earth...Getting rid of these Jews is a must" and "Praise be to you, our Lord. You have made our killing of the Jews an act of worship." Oh, no. They don't say anything about preachers like that at all. Wilson and Aslan instead will focus upon those who are resisting such preachers and others like them, and trying to defend the principles of free speech, freedom of conscience and equality of rights for all. For Reza Aslan, to defend such principles equals "forcing kids to grow up learning that a certain religion is evil or should be hated."

In reality, no one is saying that "a certain religion is evil or should be hated" except Muslim imams worldwide who say that regularly about Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and more. And in fact, FBI statistics show that there is no "Islamophobia." In fact, many "anti-Muslim hate crimes" have been faked by Muslims, and Jews are eight times more likely than Muslims to be the victims of hate attacks.

That makes this "Islamophobia" lecture by Rainn Wilson and Reza Aslan the equivalent of Dwight's fire drill in the video above: raising awareness about something that doesn't exist in the first place, or insofar as it does, is self-inflicted.

"Education Under Fire with Reza Aslan and Rainn Wilson," from USC's Academic Culture Assembly, January 17:

A really cool event is coming up that ACA is sponsoring. Put on by ACA and the Office of Religious Life, Education Under Fire is a documentary that exposes many issues with forcing kids to grow up learning that a certain religion is evil or should be hated. A panel discussion will follow featuring Reza Aslan and Rainn Wilson.

UPDATE: Jihad Watch reader Gravenimage informs me that Rainn Wilson is a Baha'i, and that Education Under Fire is a documentary about the persecution of Baha'is in Iran, and the Iranian regime's practice of denying them an education.

So then why is Reza Aslan there? He does criticize the Iranian regime on occasion, but his membership on the Board of NIAC, which Iranian freedom fighters have identified as a front group for the regime, betrays his agenda. Note also the fact that ACA is advertising the showing of a film about the persecution of the Baha'is not by mentioning the Baha'is, but by speaking more generally about children learning that "a certain religion" is evil. That makes it extremely likely that Aslan is going to relate the persecution of the Baha'is to "Islamophobia," and make sure that truth-telling about that persecution doesn't lead to any criticism of Islam, despite the fact that Islamic intolerance is the chief reason why the Baha'is suffer in the Islamic Republic.

Will Reza prove me wrong in this, and instead focus only on the persecution of the Baha'is? I hope so. But his track record does not inspire confidence in that regard.

| 18 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

The Center for American Progress is the extraordinarily well-funded hard-Left organization that published a highly deceptive and misleading report on the Muslim Brotherhood neologism "Islamophobia" last year. It is no surprise that it would turn out to be antisemitic as well, given its energetic water-carrying for Islamic supremacists and jihadists.

And now its antisemitism has gotten to be too much even for the notoriously anti-Israel Obama White House.

An update on this story. "White House troubled by ‘anti-Semitic think tank,'" by Benjamin Weinthal for the Jerusalem Post, January 20 (thanks to Wimpy):

BERLIN – The media firestorm unleashed by allegedly anti- Semitic bloggers at a prominent think tank affiliated with the US Democratic Party resulted Thursday in a White House Jewish affairs official terming the situation at the Center for American Progress to be “troubling.”

According to a Washington Post online article on Thursday, Jarrod Bernstein, the new White House liaison with the Jewish community, told Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, that what was unfolding at CAP was “troubling,” and, “that [the attitude toward Israel at the think tank] is not this administration.”

The Washington Post wrote that the Cooper met last week with Bernstein to convey the Wiesenthal Center’s worries about CAP’s hostility toward Israel and American supporters of the Jewish state.

CAP is a Washington-based policy organization that serves as a source of Middle East ideas for President Barack Obama and the party.

Zaid Jilani had blogged for the Center for American Progress’s ThinkProgress website; he used Twitter to call US supporters of the Jewish state “Israel Firsters” and compared Israel to the former apartheid regime in South Africa.

A CAP employee who said her name was Amanda told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday that Jilani was no longer employed by ThinkProgress.

Jilani’s biography and photo no longer appear on the ThinkProgress website “About” section. His Twitter feed no longer identifies him as a reporter for ThinkProgress. His last CAP blog posting was on January 12.

E-mail queries and telephone calls to senior CAP representatives, including Faiz Shakir, editor-in-chief of ThinkProgress, were not returned.

Cowards.

The Jerusalem Post exclusively obtained an e-mail in January in which Shakir described Jilani’s words charging supporters of Israel with dual-loyalty as “terrible anti-Semitic language.”

As a result of the alleged Judeophobia at CAP, the Jerusalem Post has learned from a Democratic Party source that CAP has introduced a new social media policy to monitor and prevent prejudicial writings. CAP declined to confirm the existence of the new policy.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee have all termed the anti-Israeli rhetoric of Jilani and fellow CAP writers Eli Clifton, Ali Gharib, Matt Duss and Ben Armbruster to be infected with Jew-hatred and discriminatory policy positions toward Israel.

Duss, CAP’s Middle East Progress director, wrote on ThinkProgress that “the entire Israeli occupation” of the Gaza Strip is “a moral abomination” comparable to the former Jim Crow South in the US.

Armbruster, who has attacked Jewish critics for pointing out alleged anti-Israel and anti-Semitic tirades from CAP writers, wrote “no comment” in an e-mail response to a query last week.

The think tank has been engulfed in the affair since December, electrifying the blogosphere and print and online publications in the US and Israel...

According to her article, shortly after a Jewish NGO slammed CAP for trafficking in hatred of Israel on its website in December, “Six days later, President Obama met for coffee with the man who oversaw the offending content — Faiz Shakir, the site’s editor-inchief.”...

| 10 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

The Center for American Progress is the extraordinarily well-funded hard-Left organization that published a highly deceptive and misleading report on the Muslim Brotherhood neologism "Islamophobia" last year. Now it is unmasked not only as an enabler of jihad and Islamic supremacism, but as -- surprise, surprise -- antisemitic as well.

"E-mail reveals anti-Semitism at US think tank," by Benjamin Weinthal in the Jerusalem Post, January 7 (thanks to Joseph):

A senior employee of the US think tank Center for American Progress (CAP) appears to have admitted in an e-mail sent from his CAP account that a blogger for the policy organization used anti-Semitic language to attack supporters of the Jewish state.

CAP advises the Democratic Party on Middle East policy and is an important source of ideas for the Obama administration.

The Jerusalem Post last week obtained the first CAP acknowledgment of Jew-hatred stemming from a group of Mideast bloggers affiliated with CAP’s ThinkProgress website.

In the e-mail that the Post obtained exclusively from the CAP account of Faiz Shakir, who serves as editor-in-chief of the ThinkProgress.org website and is a vice president at CAP, he wrote, “Yes, I agree ‘Israel Firster’ is terrible, anti-Semitic language. And that’s why that language no longer exists on Zaid’s personal twitter feed, because he also knows and understands the implications.”

Zaid Jilani wrote on his Twitter account, where he identifies himself as a “Reporter-Blogger for ThinkProgress,” that “...Obama is still beloved by Israel-firsters and getting lots of their $$.”

The e-mail recognizing the anti-Semitism of a CAP blogger was sent from FShakir@americanprogress.org in December.

US-Jewish and Israeli NGOs accused a faction of ThinkProgress bloggers that month of stoking modern anti-Semitism. The anti-Israel scandal saw two CAP writers, Jilani and Ali Gharib, issue apologies for asserting that American Jews and a non-Jewish Republican senator serve the interests of the Israeli government over the security of the United States.

Speaking with the Post from Washington on Thursday, Shakir declined to comment on the e-mail from his account.

He did not respond to a followup Post e-mail sent on Friday.

In a lengthy article on Friday on the Daily Beast news website, Ken Gude, the managing director of CAP’s National Security and International Policy Program, denied any anti-Semitism or anti-Israelism at CAP. He told the Daily Beast that the allegations were “wildly unfair” and “flatly untrue.”

The Post sent an e-mail to Gude on Friday citing the quote in question from the email that had been sent from Shakir’s account. He did not respond to the Post e-mail or to a follow-up telephone query.

Critics accuse CAP of failing to combat rising anti-Israel sentiment among a group of bloggers who write about the Middle East and have created an anti-Jewish state environment at the mainstream policy organization. The e-mail conceding anti-Semitism at ThinkProgress underscores an internal rift at the think tank.

CAP bloggers have attacked their critics. The ThinkProgress blogger Ben Armbruster wrote an article last month titled “The Secret, Coordinated Effort To Smear ThinkProgress As Anti-Semitic And Anti-Israel.”

He authored a second blog entry, “TAKE ACTION: Tell The Washington Post To Retract Jen Rubin’s Charge That ThinkProgress Is ‘Anti-Semitic.’” Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor, told the Post last week, “Instead of playing the victim, CAP has an obligation to implement concrete guidelines demonstrating that this language is unacceptable and that it will not be used by CAP employees in the future.”

When asked about NGO Monitor’s criticism of CAP and the Shakir e-mail account statement, Andrea Purse, a CAP spokeswoman, declined to comment. She wrote the Post last week that the articles in the Post were not helping “to defeat anti-Semitism.

The attacks and their repetition here do a disservice to all of us who fight for a strong US-Israel relationship.”

In an e-mail to the Post last week, Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, wrote, “The prominence of CAP in the Obama administration has been recognized by news outlets like Time and Bloomberg News, both of which describe the think tank as the president’s ‘Ideas Factory.’ The fact that CAP has staffers who disseminate this kind of virulent, poisonous anti-Israel material points to a serious problem – that there is a strain of hostility toward Israel running through elements of the mainstream Democratic Party.”

Matt Duss, director for the Middle East at CAP, compared Israel’s security policies to the racist “segregated South” in the United States. Duss declined to respond to queries about this statement on the ThinkProgress website. The disclosure of the e-mail from Shakir’s account comes after a series of dire developments for CAP’s reputation, culminating in sharp criticism from the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee and the Simon Wiesenthal Center – all of which slammed CAP for promoting hatred of Jews and Israel.

The antisemitic Duss, like many other Leftists and their Islamic supremacist allies, has tried to intimidate conservatives into shunning the perspective I represent. I responded here.

| 2 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Hamas-linked CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper has just emailed me to send me the link to the article below, in which we're told that New York firebomber Ray Lazier Lengend disliked Muslims and Arabs and wanted to take out as many as possible. Clearly Honest Ibe is in a celebratory mood, as he thinks he finally has his violent anti-Muslim attacker: a man whose only publicly released motive so far for disliking Muslims was that the people in mosque he attacked wouldn't let him use the bathroom, a man who is clearly unbalanced and under psychiatric observation, who also attacked a Hindu place of worship, and who had such a tendency toward violence that even his brother-in-law and his family lived in fear of him. Hooper demanded that I apologize, although I am not sure for what -- apparently for pointing out that the guy was "motivated by personal grievances" rather than by "Islamophobia."

It is obvious, however, Ray Lazier Lengend is not exactly what Hamas-linked CAIR would want in a villain. If he hated Muslims, it appears to be because his bladder was full. Nonetheless, Hooper and Co. are still popping the corks and tebowing (no, wait...) because Ray Lazier Lengend is as close as they've ever gotten to the media caricature of a violent anti-Muslim yahoo hopped up on Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs and putting a couple of rifles in his pickup to go out and kill him some Moozlums.

Such people have been so hard to come by in real life because we don't call for or approve of any violence against innocent people, or any acts of vigilantism against Muslims or anyone else. We are in reality working for justice, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights before the law for all people -- hardly a recipe for "hate" that is likely to stoke up the thugs. Anyone who actually attacked an innocent Muslim is a criminal idiot who should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Of course, the Left and Islamic supremacists are still trying to blame anti-jihadists for murders in Norway that were committed by another psychopath with no coherent ideology, who called for an alliance with jihadis and criticized me for eschewing violence, but there again, the facts fail them.

And when the facts fail dishonest Islamic supremacist and their Leftist toadies, they resort to their tried-and-true method: they make them up. In order to deflect attention away from jihad activity and try to portray Muslims as victims, so as to shame non-Muslims into not investigating or even being suspicious of further jihad activity, Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslims have not hesitated to fabricate "hate crimes." Hamas-linked CAIR and other groups like it want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they can use them for political points and as weapons to intimidate people into remaining silent about the jihad threat.

This avid search for Muslim victims has coalesced with the Islamic supremacists' anxiety to discredit me and obscure the truths I tell: they were even prepared to blame me for a murder in New Jersey that turned out to be a love triangle that the killer tried to frame as an anti-Muslim hate crime. Not only did I receive a tweet from a Muslim blaming me for the murder, but also a well-placed source told me that Hooper was “salivating and waiting to jump all over” the murder story. “They are waiting to blame you for everything.”

Anyway, my congratulations to Hooper for finally bagging the big one that he will ride for all the privileged victim status he can wring from it, even if Lengend is clearly more psychotic than "Islamophobe." Honest Ibe's gleeful email to me indicates how thrilled he is today, and so I can now bring you the most entertaining hat tip evuh: "Alleged Queens firebomber wanted to massacre Muslims in mosque, prosecutors say: Brother-in-law says he feared alleged pyro: 'He had a vendetta against us,'" by Rocco Parascandola, Matt Mcnulty, Kerry Burke and Kevin Deutsch for the New York Daily News, January 5 (thanks to Ibrahim Hooper):

THE UNHINGED Queens pyromaniac who unleashed a scary New Year’s Day firebombing spree had planned to take out “as many Muslims and Arabs as possible” by lobbing Molotov cocktails at worshipers inside a mosque, prosecutors said.

Ray Lazier Lengend, 40, allegedly told cops he had planned to inflict “as much damage as possible” by hurling all five of his firebombs from the balcony of Imam Al-Khoei Islamic Center onto the crowd below.

The hateful bomb-hurler, who is under psychiatric observation at Bellevue Hospital center, flat-out told detectives he did not like Muslims or Arabs, prosecutors said.

“This is a message to anyone who does this in the future,” said Imam Maan Al-Sahlani, leader of Imam Al-Khoei Islamic Center, where Lengend planned to inflict major casualties. “It’s a good message that justice will come for you, the police will come for you.”

The imam applauded prosecutors’ use of the hate crime statute and hoped it would deter further anti-Muslim crimes.

“Obviously there is something wrong with him,” Al-Sahlani said.

Indeed.

Lengend, an unemployed truck driver from Queens Village, will face a judge via video arraignment Thursday from his bed at Bellevue.

He faces 18 charges including arson as a hate crime and weapon possession for throwing Starbucks Frappuccino bottles filled with gasoline at four occupied Jamaica buildings — two of them places of worship.

Lengend’s brother-in-law, Bejai Rai, 73, said his Elmont, L.I., house was also firebombed because he evicted Lengend for not paying rent.

“He had a vendetta against us,” Rai told the Daily News. “He tried to kill my wife, my two sons and my sister. I’m glad they got him otherwise he’d be back to firebomb us again.” Rai said his family could not sleep until Lengend was caught.

“This is the first night we’ve been able to rest since the bombing.”

Lengend carried out his spree in a silver Buick Regal, which had been stolen from a rental car business at Kennedy Airport....

His first target was Hillside Deli on 179th St., where Lengend threw a flaming glass bottle that ignited upon hitting the floor.

He burned four other targets, including the mosque and a Hindu place of worship on 170th St., but did not inflict the massive damage he hoped for, prosecutors said.

Lengend confessed to three earlier attacks as well, sources said. He claimed ongoing beefs were his motive for all eight crimes.

As I noted here, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) used this incident to expatiate about the alleged rise in violence against mosques and Muslims. Will Hamas-linked CAIR now retract and apologize? And as you can see below, Bloomberg held a press conference about this. Will he, also, now retract and apologize?

Don't hold your breath on either count. But what Pamela Geller says is apt: "So the media mosque meme was patently untrue, and that schmuck Bloomberg looks the fool yet again after holding press conferences against 'hate crime' before he knew what, who and why. And Hamas-tied CAIR was on the radio this morning, WBAI, lying again, blaming me and other bloggers for inciting this hatred of Muslims. Vile jihadists will say anything and do anything."

"Man confesses to bombing NY mosque," from Reuters, January 4 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

A New York City man faces arson and bias charges after confessing to a series of Molotov cocktail attacks that hit a mosque and a Hindu place of worship and unsettled civic leaders concerned the actions might portend violent religious bigotry.

The suspect, who has not been identified by name, is a 40-year-old unemployed tow-truck driver who appeared to have been motivated by personal grudges, said a law enforcement familiar with the investigation who was speaking on condition of anonymity.

The suspect, who is originally from Guyana and lives in the Jamaica section of Queens where four of the attacks took place, also made "broadly anti-Muslim statements" during questioning, the official said.

But apparently they centered around his not being allowed to use the bathroom at the mosque:

He chose the mosque after being refused access to the facility's bathroom, and he mistook one of the private residences as the home of a "crack dealer" with whom he had a dispute, the official said.

Another of the targets was a private residence where Hindu services were held, but that may have been a coincidence. The suspect had a years-old dispute with someone who may not live there anymore, the official said....

"The individual is implicating himself in each of the five firebombing cases, citing personal grievances with each location," said police spokesman Paul Browne.

The arson attacks drew condemnation from religious and civic leaders of various backgrounds who joined New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly for a news conference before the confession was reported.

"Fear mongering about Islam and other American minorities have ripped this country apart... We are all affected when this hate explodes," said Cyrus McGoldrick of the New York chapter of the [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights group.

I'll be right here waiting for McGoldrick to recant his false claims and apologize to those who are fighting for freedom against Islamization.

One of the firebombs hit the mosque entrance at the Imam al-Khoei Foundation, a Shiite organization in the New York City borough of Queens while some 75 to 80 people were inside....

The suspect's grievances with the convenience store may have started on Dec. 27 when a clerk confronted a man thought to have being trying to steal a Starbucks Frappuccino, police said.

"When they were pushing him out of the store, he said words to the effect of, 'We're going to get even. We're going to get back at you,'" Kelly said before the confession was reported....

| 13 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

A Shi'ite mosque, a house where Hindus were meeting to worship, and a Christian family home were all firebombed, along with other sites. In its daily "American Muslim News Briefs," the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) mentioned in passing that "two nearby homes were apparently targeted by the same attackers," but didn't bother to mention that one was a Hindu worship site, and went on to expatiate about the alleged rise in violence against mosques and Muslims. All acts of violence and vigilantism are to be condemned, not just those against Muslims, but Hamas-linked CAIR is trying to use this incident to enhance its fictional narrative of "Islamophobia" raging out of control and innocent Muslims facing discrimination and violence everywhere -- so as to deflect attention from jihad terror activity.

The fact that so many different places were targeted indicates that this firebomber's motive was something other than "Islamophobia," but that won't stop Hamas-linked CAIR or its lapdog media outlets.

"Media focuses on Mosque firebombed in Queens, ignores firebombing against Hindus, Christians," by Matt Lacy in the Greeley Gazette, January 2:

A series of firebombing in Queens, New York that targeted a Hindu place of worship, an African-American Christian couple’s home and a Mosque is being portrayed by the mainstream media and a Muslim advocacy group as a hate crime solely directed against Muslims.

A series of firebombs involving Molotov cocktails was directed against two homes, including one where a group of Hindus was meeting to worship, another home where an African-American Christian couple lived, a convenience store and a local mosque.

The Al-Khoei Islamic Foundation houses one of the most prominent Shiite mosques in New York. According to its website it lists branches in several cities including London, Paris, Montreal and Islamabad, Pakistan. The firebomb, made with a Starbucks bottle was thrown at the door of the center. While the door was blackened, the building did not catch fire.

Police are investigating the crime as an anti-Muslim hate crime. A spokesman for the New York Police Department told the Gazette anytime an attack is made on a Mosque or a synagogue, it is automatically investigated as a bias or hate crime.

The meeting at the Hindu home consisted of two firebombs that did not catch fire, while the home of Monty and Sonya Burnett, who are African-American and Christian, was heavily damaged.

The Burnett’s home was the most heavily damaged of all of the structures firebombed during the four attacks. It took more than 60 firefighters to get the fire under control.

While the bombings were directed at Hindus and Christians as well as Muslims, one would not know that from reading much of the mainstream press coverage of the event.

The New York Times said in the lead paragraph that “police were investigating (the firebombings) as a possible bias crime against Muslims.” Nowhere in the story does it mention the attack on the Hindu worshippers or the Christian family, simply referring to them as houses that were bombed.

The New York Daily News followed a similar lead. While the article did mention the other attacks were on Christians and Hindus, the headline read “Four firebombs, including one tossed at Queens Mosque, eyed as hate crimes.”

Other headlines by various papers included “Islamic structure firebombed in Queens, three other structures attacked”, “4 Firebombs hit Muslim targets in NYC” and “Firebomb attacks in Queens hit Mosque in possible hate crime.”

On Monday morning, the Council on American Islamic Relations sent out an e-mail release suggesting the attack was directed solely against Muslims. The e-mail said in the subject line “CAIR condemns firebombing of NY Mosque.”

The e-mail went on to say that Ibrahim Hooper, National Director for CAIR said the organization is calling on local police to boost patrols near mosques and advised members of the Muslim community to review security procedures.

Nowhere in the message from CAIR is there any mention made of or a condemnation of the attacks against Christians and Hindus during the same wave of attacks.

Instead, Hooper focused exclusively on the Muslim component saying “a number of recent reports have documented the growth and promotion of Islamophobia.”

Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch said the media spin shows the favoritism Muslim groups are given to the exclusion of other groups and that CAIR is simply trying to use this attack to portray Muslims as the exclusive victims in this case.

“Implying the attacks were directed solely at Muslims is obviously false and self-serving. It seems as if whoever did this is opposed to foreigners or religion in general and to say this is exclusively a Muslim hate crime is a politically motivated claim.”

Spencer went on to say that CAIR’s ignoring the firebombing of the black Christian family and the Hindus shows the agency’s isn’t really interested in hate crimes against other groups but simply want to use the attacks to their advantage.

“CAIR did not mention anything about the Hindus or Christians when they issued their release. This just shows how self-serving their claims of victimhood really are,” Spencer said. “They called for increased police patrols against mosques, but they didn’t say anything about calling for protection for Hindu or Christian places of worship.”

| 17 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

As I noted here, Dean Obeidallah is making a film about the trumped-up concept of "Islamophobia," and he would really like to interview me for it. So after I wrote this yesterday, we had another exchange, and I thought there might be an opportunity for some honest dialogue. So I asked Obeidallah to answer these questions, and told him I'd be interviewed for his film if he did so:

1. True or false: No comedy show, no matter how clever or winning, is going to eradicate the suspicion that many Americans have of Muslims. This is because Americans are concerned about Islam not because of the work of greasy Islamophobes, but because of Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; and Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; and Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; and Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; and Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; and Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; and Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber; and many others like them who have plotted and/or committed mass murder in the name of Islam and motivated by its texts and teachings -- all in the U.S. in the last couple of years.

2. True or false: The fact that there are other Muslims not fighting jihad is just great, but it doesn't mean that the jihad isn't happening. This comedy show simply doesn't address the problem of jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism.

3. What do you make of the fact that Islamic supremacists from the Muslim Brotherhood invented the term "Islamophobia" in order to deflect attention away from jihad violence and Islamic supremacism, and intimidate opponents thereof?

4. What do you have to say about the fact that FBI statistics show that there is no "Islamophobia"?

5. What do you have to say about the fact that many "anti-Muslim hate crimes" have been faked by Muslims, and that Jews are eight times more likely than Muslims to be the victims of hate attacks.

6. True or false? Since the Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated in its own words to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within," one easy way to do that would be to guilt-trip non-Muslims into being ashamed of resisting jihad activity and Islamic supremacism, for fear of being accused of "Islamophobia."

7. True or false: Negin Farsad, with her "eye-catching mini dresses," etc., has more to worry about from observant Muslims than she does from "Islamophobes."

8. What do you think of this: When you call Geller (and by implication, me) a "Muslim hater," I believe that you are ascribing people's legitimate concerns about jihad and Islamic supremacism to "hate," and that the only effect of this will be to make people who have those legitimate concerns to be even more suspicious of Muslims, which will only lead to more of what you call "Islamophobia."

9. Is there a plan behind your demonizing and smearing of all anti-jihadists? Do you want to create "Islamophobia" in order to claim privileged victim status for Muslims and exempt them from reasonable law enforcement scrutiny?

10. What kind of work have you done to raise awareness about the escalating persecution of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim societies, which is far worse in Egypt, Pakistan and elsewhere than Muslims have it here? Why not?

11. On what basis do you imply that those who are defending freedom against jihad are "exhibiting behavior which is less than consistent with the values of this nation"? What have you done to resist the Muslim Brotherhood's stated agenda of "sabotaging" this nation "from within"?

12. Aside from the murder of a Sikh by an idiot shortly after 9/11, what evidence do you have of any backlash against Muslims to which you refer so off-handedly in the WaPo? Where are Muslims suffering violence, discrimination, harassment of any kind? Even you expected far worse than you got when you went to the South -- and the level of harassment you did get was no worse than what I get in my email every day. So why the overblown claims about it?

13. And yes, what do you think about these recommendations?

Do Negin Farsad and Dean Obeidallah really want to eradicate "Islamophobia"? As long as Islamic jihad and supremacism continue, a comedy tour will never do the trick. But here is an easy way. They can call on Muslims in the U.S. to do these things:

1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively, sincerely, honestly, and in deeds, not just in comforting words, not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people, teaching accordingly in mosques and Islamic schools, and behaving in accord with these new teachings.
3. Teach, again sincerely and honestly, in transparent and verifiable ways in mosques and Islamic schools, the imperative of Muslims coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis, and act accordingly.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach sincerely against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively and honestly work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

Obeidallah refused to answer the questions. And so I put it to you: why not? Is there something wrong with them? Why do Islamic supremacists and their enablers and allies always refuse to engage in an actual give-and-take with people with whom they disagree?

UPDATE: Dean Obeidallah has just contacted me full of threats of lawsuits, demanding that I put up his full response to my request that he answer the questions above and take down the "Islamic supremacist" label as applied to him. While his genuine libels of Pamela Geller (see question 8, above) don't seem to trouble him, I am happy to comply: I've added "and their enablers and allies" to the paragraph above, as in fact I am not sure which category Dean Obeidallah fits into, and here is his email, below. It is, as you'll see, a claim that he is too busy to answer my questions and that he will meet me to discuss them privately. I am happy to meet him to discuss them privately, but I do not intend to be cast as the villain in some bogus "Islamophobia" victimhood presentation without getting public answers from the producers:

Robert - I dont have the time to answer all ur questions in the midst of editing a film and all the other projects Im working on - in fact I didnt even finish reading all of them.

You dont know me but Im a rather direct person so so let me make this easy: If you are interested in being interviewed for our film, I can assure you that we will not quote u out of context or play any games with you- we will ask u straightforward questions - most of which Im sure u have been asked before.

If ur interested then lets please lock in a date when u will be in NYC and conduct the interview. If you're not interested then lets not waste any more of each other's time-I know we are both busy people.

Thanks
Dean

| 127 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

No comedy show, no matter how clever or winning, is going to eradicate the suspicion that many Americans have of Muslims. This is because Americans are concerned about Islam not because of the work of greasy Islamophobes, but because of Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; and Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; and Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; and Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; and Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; and Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; and Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber; and many others like them who have plotted and/or committed mass murder in the name of Islam and motivated by its texts and teachings -- all in the U.S. in the last couple of years.

The fact that there are other Muslims not fighting jihad is just great, but it doesn't mean that the jihad isn't happening. This comedy show simply doesn't address the problem of jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism.

As David Horowitz and I show in our pamphlet Islamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian Future, the term "Islamophobia" is a politically manipulative coinage designed to intimidate critics of Islamic supremacism and jihad into silence.

Claire Berlinski explains how Islamic supremacists from the Muslim Brotherhood devised it for precisely that purpose:

Now here's a point you might deeply consider: The neologism "Islamophobia" did not simply emerge ex nihilo. It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia. If that name dimly rings a bell, it should: I've mentioned it before, and it's particularly important because it was co-founded by Anwar Ibrahim--the hero of Moderate Islam who is now trotting around the globe comparing his plight to that of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. "This loathsome term," he writes,

is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.

And in fact, FBI statistics show that there is no "Islamophobia." In fact, many "anti-Muslim hate crimes" have been faked by Muslims, and Jews are eight times more likely than Muslims to be the victims of hate attacks.

The Muslim Brotherhood is dedicated in its own words to "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within." One easy way to do that would be to guilt-trip non-Muslims into being ashamed of resisting jihad activity and Islamic supremacism, for fear of being accused of "Islamophobia." I doubt these comics are aware of this program, but they're useful tools for it.

"Muslim American comics’ tour and documentary," by Tara Bahrampour in the Washington Post, December 27 (thanks to James):

Beware, America. The Muslims are coming, and they look and act suspiciously like you.

Sheesh. No one says they aren't. This is just a straw man designed to demonize opponents of jihad.

Negin Farsad, an Iranian American stand-up comic from California, wears eye-catching mini dresses, curses liberally and has awkward sex talks with her mother (though hers sound more like alien encounters. Actual quote: “You had intergender flesh relations without the security of external safety product?”).

Then she has more to worry about from observant Muslims than she does from "Islamophobes."

Such conversations, painfully private in traditional Muslim societies, are public fodder for Farsad and three other Gen X and Gen Y Muslim comics with whom she traveled to the deep South this past summer.

The tour, which later extended to Western states and included other Muslim comics, will form the backbone of “The Muslims Are Coming!,” a documentary film about Islamophobia in America that Farsad is working on with Palestinian Italian American comedian Dean Obeidallah.

This is going to be the usual victimhood-mongering and deflecting of attention from the real causes of suspicion of Muslims in the U.S. Obeidallah contacted me and asked me to be interviewed for the piece, and assured me he would give me a fair hearing. But then he went on Twitter and called Pamela Geller a "Muslim-hater" -- echoing the deceptive Islamic supremacist claim that fighting for free speech and equality of rights for all people is "hate." His true agenda thus revealed, I bowed out of the interview.

The documentary, which includes interviews with comics such as Jon Stewart and Louis Black and commentators including CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, explores freedom of religion and what it means to be a minority in America.

Note the implication: that minorities have it so tough in America. No mention will be made, no doubt, of the far more precarious position of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim societies.

Muslim American stand-up comedy is a relatively new phenomenon, the domain of second-generation immigrants who are American enough to satirize the Muslim American experience, said Obeidallah, who lives in New York City.

“We’re confident enough to do this,” he said. “An immigrant would be less confident to use comedy to try to challenge perceptions of who we are. We’re confident enough in being Americans and knowing what that means, that we can push against those who are exhibiting behavior which is less than consistent with the values of this nation.”

Note that in Obeidallah's world, the people who are "exhibiting behavior which is less than consistent with the values of this nation" are those fighting for freedom and Constitutional rights, not Brotherhood-related groups dedicated to bringing to the U.S. elements of a legal system that denies freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for women and non-Muslims.

A major factor driving Muslim Americans toward comedy was the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. “There were no Middle Eastern comics before 9/11 that anyone knew about,” Obeidallah said. “The phenomenon really grew in the last 10 years, because of the [anti-Muslim] backlash.

There was no backlash, of course. Innocent Muslims are not being victimized in the U.S. Muslims live better here than in many Muslim countries. Obeidallah -- clueless or complicit? You be the judge.

I think a lot of people in our community started doing it as a form of political activism.” As they started appearing on national television, he said, “it spurred other Middle Eastern comedians to get involved.” Now, he said, there are about 10 full-time professinals and a growing number of aspiring professionals.

Going to the South, where anti-mosque demonstrations and anti-immigrant sentiment has made some Muslims feel unwelcome, the comedians hoped to break through some of the cultural walls that have arisen since Sept. 11.

The point was to see “how would people in the heartland take to us?” Obeidallah said. “Would we encounter angry people going, ‘Get out of here, you Muslims,’ or would they understand?”

Traveling through Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Tennessee, they gave free performances in cafes, community centers and theaters. They set up tables in public places, with scripture-related guessing games and the opportunity for people to “Ask a Muslim” anything they wanted.

“I could kind of like Muslims, but why do you guys like terrorism so much?” some asked. “What do you think of 9/11?” was another common question.

How horrible! They got asked uncomfortable questions! Oh, the "Islamophobia"!

On the whole, the public response was encouraging. While a few people drove by and yelled, “Go back to your country!” the one-on-one encounters tended to be positive.

Oh, the horror! They encountered some rude jerks! Almost as bad as being Christians in Nigeria, eh?

“Most people are more open-minded and not that concerned about Muslims,” Obeidallah said. “It’s really the fringe that’s driving that narrative.”

Maysoon Zayid, one of the comics on the tour, said people were surprised to see that “I’m such a Jersey girl, I’m so accessible. . . . I think they are really surprised that I wasn’t this oppressed woman trying to convert people.”

The comedians acknowledged that they were unlikely to win the hearts of the most fervent anti-Muslim types.

“A show called ‘The Muslims Are Coming’ — people self-select to come see it,” Farsad said. “We’re never going to be able to touch the extreme haters. . . . We’re trying to affect the people in the middle, people with questions, the ‘persuadables.’ ”

Do Negin Farsad and Dean Obeidallah really want to eradicate "Islamophobia"? As long as Islamic jihad and supremacism continue, a comedy tour will never do the trick. But here is an easy way. They can call on Muslims in the U.S. to do these things:

1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively, sincerely, honestly, and in deeds, not just in comforting words, not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people, teaching accordingly in mosques and Islamic schools, and behaving in accord with these new teachings.
3. Teach, again sincerely and honestly, in transparent and verifiable ways in mosques and Islamic schools, the imperative of Muslims coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis, and act accordingly.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach sincerely against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively and honestly work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

If Muslims do those five things, voila! "Islamophobia" will evanesce!

| 38 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

No ad, no matter how clever or winning, is going to eradicate the suspicion that many Americans have of Muslims. This is because Americans are concerned about Islam not because of the work of greasy Islamophobes, but because of Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; and Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; and Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; and Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; and Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; and Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; and Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber; and many others like them who have plotted and/or committed mass murder in the name of Islam and motivated by its texts and teachings -- all in the U.S. in the last couple of years.

If Sabeel Ahmed really wants to stop "Islamophobia," here is an easy way. Muslims can:

1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively, sincerely, honestly, and in deeds, not just in comforting words, not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people, teaching accordingly in mosques and Islamic schools, and behaving in accord with these new teachings.
3. Teach, again sincerely and honestly, in transparent and verifiable ways in mosques and Islamic schools, the imperative of Muslims coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis, and act accordingly.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach sincerely against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively and honestly work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

If Muslims do those five things, voila! "Islamophobia" will evanesce!

"New ads aim to eradicate Islamophobia," by Delal Pektas for WBEZ, December 20 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Some new TV ads in Chicago are trying to portray Islam in a good light.

The ads will be broadcasted on some cable channels for the next three months. Dr. Sabeel Ahmed, the Director of Gain Peace Project-Chicago, said the commercials are meant to eradicate Islamophobia.

"It's very important for us to realize that by watching these ads, we hope that the viewers could realize that Islam is not a faith to be feared but a faith that cherishes human values, a faith that encourages its followers to reach out to the neighbors and to the community," Ahmed said....

| 30 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

UPDATE: Hammerman's article has now been edited (without any notification of this being done). The paragraph I quoted below has been removed. Take a look at the comments at Jewish Week and you will see why he saw fit to do this.

-----------------------

Even the Islamic supremacists don't go this far in whipping up hysteria about the chimerical threat of "Islamophobia." No, leave that to a dhimmi Useful Idiot. On the other hand, this is so howlingly absurd that maybe Rabbi Joshua Hammerman is an extremely subtle anti-jihadist, lampooning the "Islamophobia" hysteria by caricaturing it.

"My Tim Tebow Problem," by Rabbi Joshua Hammerman for Jewish Week, December 12 (thanks to Wimpy):

If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably....
| 35 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Claims of "Islamophobia," incitement, and the danger of "backlash" are undoubtedly forthcoming.

Muslim advocacy groups want a double standard in favor of Islam. If there had been a mass-casualty attack by a "Pastafarian" soldier quoting Pastafarian scripture to kill for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, there would be hearings and inquiries. If there had been more than one Pastafarians who killed or tried to kill fellow soldiers, there would be all the more urgent hearings and inquiries, no questions asked. Detecting a pattern and calling attention to it would not be equated with "hate" (almost never "hatred," for whatever reason, but "hate").

But the apparent mentality toward another jihadist attack within the military seems almost like waiting for a tornado: it can happen, though no one can say when or where, or why; just duck and cover when it does, and hope for the best. "Rep. King’s fourth Muslim-American radicalization hearing to focus on military," by Jordy Yager for The Hill, December 4:

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee is hoping his panel’s hearing on the radicalization of Muslim-Americans within the U.S. military will reveal how the armed services can better protect itself against homegrown attacks.
Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) is holding a joint hearing on Wednesday, along with Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), as the next stage in his series of efforts to address the radicalization of American Muslims.
Pointing to the 2009 shootings at the Fort Hood military base in Texas and at a military recruiting station in Arkansas, which killed a total of 14 people and wounded more than two dozen, King said the issue of radicalization within military communities is one that is grossly under the radar.

There is also Naser Abdo, the erstwhile "moderate" poster child.

“There is an attempt by Islamists to join the military and infiltrate the military, and it’s more of a threat than the average American is aware of right now,” said King in an interview with The Hill on Monday.
Lieberman said his committee has held 13 hearings over the past five years on the issue of violent Islamic extremism and, based on what he has learned, the military is an increasingly large target for attacks.
“Clearly, the threat of homegrown terrorism has increased dramatically, and clearly, members of the armed services are a high-value target,” Lieberman said in a statement.
The issue was brought to the front burner for King after it was raised by Paul Stockton, the assistant secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs. King said he feels the Obama administration is just as concerned with the issue as he is, and hopes to develop a working partnership to address some of the inadequacies that will come up at Wednesday’s hearing.
“I think more can be done,” he said. “But this is not going to be any attempt to bash the administration, necessarily. From my perspective it’s going to be a productive hearing and it’s not going to turn into a partisan fight.”
King gave several examples of issues that need more attention, such as whether the military needs to provide more security for recruiting centers and bases in the U.S. or whether local and state law enforcement should play a larger role in coordinating security with the military.
He said he also hopes to address the minutiae of radicalization on military bases. He used an example of how he has heard of at least one instance in which a copy of the radical Islamic magazine Inspire — which has been used as a recruiting tool for terrorist groups — was found in a barracks and allowed to remain. But Confederate flags are rightfully banned, he said.
“I’m using that as an example about whether or not we need to be more aggressive in facing up to the reality. It’s Islamic terrorism. It’s not just a nondescript, anonymous type of terrorism.”...
| 20 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Yet more evasion of responsibility and finger-pointing from Muslim leaders. When have we seen anything else from them? The unmentioned fact here, of course, is Islamic jihad terrorism. If jihadists would stop justifying violence, hatred and supremacism in the name of Islam, this "negative perception of Islam" would melt away.

More on this story. "Nigeria: Muslim Leaders Berate Media on 'Negative Representation of Islam,'" by Hamza Idris for the Daily Trust via AllAfrica.com, November 24 (thanks to Maxwell):

Istanbul — LEADERS of Muslim communities in Africa yesterday in Istanbul, Turkey frowned at the international media for portraying Islam as a religion of violence and intolerance. Muslim representatives, who spoke at the ongoing Summit of Religious Leaders of Muslim Countries and Communities in Africa (SRLMCC) which was organized by the Turkish Presidency of Religious Affairs, observed that poor understanding of the teachings of Islam as well as negative campaigns were responsible for the violence, poverty and ignorance in many African countries.

Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who spoke at the opening session of the five -day conference noted that though his country is not part of Africa, his people are deeply pained by the happenings in the continent.

"There is a systematic campaign across the world against Islam. The negative perception of Islam as a religion of conflict as being portrayed by the media is very wrong. The media is using some marginal examples to define Islam as a religion of conflict and terrorism and as Muslims, we have to come together to overcome these challenges. Turkey will continue to assist Muslim communities in Africa in the areas of education, science and technology," he said.

Dr Abdul Lateef Adegbite, the Secretary-General of the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, who was represented by Professor Yahya Oyewole Imam, said the council was responsible for inter-faith dialogue and collaboration with other agencies towards the propagation of good virtues of Islam.

The Shehu of Borno Alhaji Dr. Abubakar Ibn Umar Garbai El-Kanemi on his part described the coming together of Muslims in Africa as a positive development.

"The time for such initiative and effort is more appropriate now than ever before. This is because in these days of globalization and science and information technology, Islam has continued to face greater challenge of unity, peace and harmony. These are no doubt easy to achieve if we all adhere strictly to the great tenets of Islam which guide Muslims of all ages on what to do and what not to do," he said.

Muslim leaders from all African countries are attending the event.

| 27 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Here is still more Islamic supremacist evasion of responsibility and finger-pointing. Erdogan, like every other Muslim spokesman in the West and elsewhere, refuses to acknowledge that "Islamophobia," insofar as any suspicion of Muslims actually exists, is due to Islamic jihad terror. If Islamic jihad terror and supremacist attempts to impose Sharia on the West were to end definitively, "Islamophobia" would disappear. The fact that Muslim spokesmen like Erdogan never admit this is indicative of their true agenda: to deflect attention away from the global jihad and Islamic supremacism and to claim protected victim status for Muslims, so that the jihad can advance uncriticized and unimpeded.

"Erdogan blasts anti-Islam propaganda," from Iran's PressTV, November 21 (thanks to Benedict):

Turk [sic! -- unless they mean "the Turk," i.e., Erdogan] has censured anti-Islam propaganda and called on the Muslim world to show solidarity against rising Islamophobia across the Western world, Press TV reports.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that there is a vicious propaganda campaign against Islam by some Western circles, Press TV's Ankara correspondent reported.

Erdogan was addressing the Second Meeting of Leaders of African Continent Muslim Countries and Societies which opened in Istanbul on Monday.

“There are those who use some marginal cases, to equate Islam and Muslims with terrorism, clashes, intolerance and poverty,” Erdogan stated.

“A mistake by a member of a religion or society should not be attributed to the religion or society,” he added.

“This means that Islamophobia should be condemned as much as racism and anti-Semitism is [condemned],” the Turkish premier stressed....

| 11 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Commentary generally marches in dhimmi lockstep with dreary predictability, but here it breaks ranks. And these 2010 statistics are no different from those of the previous year. "FBI Statistics Belie Islamophobia Hysteria," by Jonathan S. Tobin in Commentary, November 20:

It has become an accepted trope of contemporary journalism that American Muslims are under siege and beset by hatred and prejudice. But the evidence for this conventional wisdom is lacking. The story line of Muslim persecution in the United States has always been a matter of anecdotes and perception, not facts. That truth was confirmed this week when the FBI released their annual crime statistics report which showed once again that hate crimes against Muslims remain rare and are far outnumbered by attacks on Jews....

The report is not perfect, since not all parts of the country do a good job compiling the data, but it provides an important snapshot of the state of the nation regarding bias crimes. But the numbers speak for themselves. In 2010, only 13.2 percent of religion-based attacks were directed at Muslims. By comparison, 65.4 percent of such crimes were directed at Jews. This shows a slight increase over the last two years (the raw numbers show 887 anti-Jewish attacks with only 160 anti-Muslim attacks), but is not a statistical fluke. In 2009, the FBI reported that 70.1 percent of religious-based hate crimes were anti-Jewish while only 9.3 percent were anti-Islamic. In 2008, the FBI said 66.1 percent were anti-Jewish while 7.5 percent were anti-Muslim. This has been true of every year in the past decade, even in 2001 when anti-Muslim crime spiked in the wake of 9/11. For all of the breast-beating about Islamophobia in this country, anti-Semitism remains a far greater problem....

| 12 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Marina Mahathir is a Malaysian social activist and writer. And you may recognize her last name: she is also the oldest daughter of a certain Malaysian former prime minister, the man who is in many ways responsible for the ongoing Islamization of Malaysia, Doctor Mahathir bin Mohamad. In case you forgot, he is infamous for his virulent brand of antisemitism and his remark as Malaysia’s prime minister during a 2003 Organization of the Islamic Conference meeting: that Jews “…run the world by proxy.” Marina has largely inherited his particular political outlook; she is always ready to utter any amount of cognitive dissonance in the service of Islam. From “Irrational Fears Abound”, by Marina Mahathir, The Star, 9 November 2011:

TEN years ago the world turned a decidedly nastier place for Muslims. Although Islamo­phobia already existed before Sept 11, the events that day ratcheted it up several notches. Suddenly Muslims in the United States and all over the world found themselves under intense scrutiny, much of it hostile.

What happened on September 11, 2001? Three thousand people, the vast majority of whom were non-Muslims, were murdered en masse, not by ‘Islamophobes’, but by Muslim jihadists in explicit accordance with Islamic teachings. And Marina has the typically Islamic chutzpah to proclaim Muslims are the real victims. It’s like a teenager murdering his own mother and father, and then petitioning the court for leniency during his murder trial because he’s an orphan.

Stereotypes abounded. Although Islam is a religion of peace, all Muslims were branded terrorists, undemocratic, violent, oppressors of women.

The only images seen in the media were of angry bearded men wielding weapons and shouting threats to the West. Only Muslim women covered head to toe in dour black, were seen. It did not help that some Muslims themselves provided fodder for these images.

Tales of aggression against Mus­lims abounded. Headscarves were pulled off, insults hurled and, at airports, anyone with the slightest tinge of an Arabic name was pulled out for special inspection. Some people suffered even more violence, resulting in injury and even death.

These ‘tales of aggression’ are precisely that—largely fictional tales, consisting almost entirely of disinformation and victimization fantasies. Documented cases of actual violence against Muslims in western countries by non-Muslims are exceedingly rare, while the copious amounts of legalized discrimination, official oppression, and documented violence directed against non-Muslims by Muslims (especially in Muslim-ruled lands like Malaysia) are almost always conveniently ignored by Muslim apologists like Marina Mahathir.

Fear ruled and with it came prejudice and discrimination, much of it fuelled by the media. Most of it stemmed from ignorance about the world of Islam, which is not only large but also diverse.

This diversity does not at all mean that there is no agreement in the Islamic world on the eventual objective for Islam to implement sharia around the globe, and the use of Jihad, violent or otherwise, as a legitimate means towards this goal.

A Muslim in the Middle East is culturally different from a Muslim in Asia, but that was not appreciated in much of the West. Indeed Middle Eastern Muslims comprise only 15% of the entire Muslim world. Further­more there are many Western Muslims who look and act no different from their fellow citizens.

Meanwhile, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq only angered Muslims, who then reacted in ways that ingrained the stereotypes about them.

See, all that terrorism committed by Muslims is really the fault of their victims. Are Muslims ever responsible for any acts of violence, Marina?

The early post-Sept 11 Islamo­phobic madness only lessened when much better information and knowledge about Islam and Muslims became available. This took two forms.

One, many Muslims took it upon themselves to educate non-Muslims about Islam, and in particular reached out to other faith communities to talk about their commonalities, rather than differences.

And two, thousands of students flocked to universities to learn more about Islam. Both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars of Islam did much to teach students about the real religion, rather than the one perpetuated by the media.

Ten years later, although it cannot be said that Islamophobia has disappeared, Western perspectives on Islam have become more measured and based on better knowledge. One of the biggest boosts to the image of Islam and Muslims has been the Arab Spring.

Suddenly the images of Muslims were young, modern, and protesting not about the West but about their own corrupt leaders. Although they did not explicitly talk about religion, in 2011 the Middle East became associated with the yearning for freedom and democracy, one not too different from what developed countries enjoyed.

Women were seen at the forefront of the revolution, both head-scarved and not, and changed the image of the oppressed Muslim woman.

We know that the ‘Arab Spring’ has been, at the very least, vastly oversold by the very same Western media that Marina happily bashes. This so-called ‘spring’, rather than being the birth of Jeffersonian freedoms, is proving to be a season for old tyrants to be replaced, sometimes violently, by more 'Islamist', sharia-compliant ones.   

As for the oppression of Muslim women, who is oppressing them, and why? Would that have anything to do with Islamic scripture that devalues women, renders them effectively as minors and forever places men as their superiors? Or is this oppression yet again somehow the fault of the infidels? Don’t hold your collective breath waiting for Ms. Marina to answer that.

It just goes to show that prejudice and discrimination, both rooted in fear of the unknown, can always be dispelled with better knowledge, at least in those willing to learn. There are of course many who simply refuse to open their hearts and minds to such enlightenment, but progress has been made in incremental steps.

It is also clear that very often those who steadfastly refuse to eliminate their prejudices do so because they think it is politically profitable to them. The loudest Islamophobes always seem to be politicians trying to win the populist vote. And the only way they maintain those votes is by keeping people ignorant. Hence, their refusal to engage at all with Muslims.

See, it is the fault of infidels for refusing to bend over backwards to accommodate (i.e. ‘engage’) the Muslims.

Every phobia about groups of people who are different from us works in the same way. They rely on stereotypes and on the fear that allowing these minority people the same basic rights as others would mean that they would demand more.

Thus, although no Muslim ever asked for it, some people in the US insist that there are plans to impose syariah law there. The media stokes the hysteria and stigmatisation. Unjust accusations and calls for depriving them of citizenship becomes the norm.

The way Marina writes, you might think ‘syariah’ (sharia) law is something bad that might cause harm to Americans. Why would she suggest that—is she herself an Islamophobe? Regardless, the historical record does not lie—Muslims everywhere always move to implement Sharia law, or parts thereof, as soon as their numbers and influence in a given jurisdiction make it politically feasible to do so. Are Muslims in the US going to be any different? Plainly, as even a cursory examination of the facts reveals, the answer is almost certainly 'no'.

Although those baying for blood are small in number, they still make innocent people suffer. People who have never harmed anyone else suffer distrust and hostility from their former neighbours. Violence against them is justified, sometimes with religious backing. The entire atmosphere is poisoned by hate.

Muslims never hate anyone, it seems—only ‘Islamophobes’ spread ‘hate’ by reporting on the actions of Muslims and the ideology that they follow.

This past week, where some people seem to be proudly picking on the powerless, has reminded me of that Islamophobic hysteria. I fear for our country and where we are heading.

Where is Malaysia heading? The truth is likely not to unduly worry the likes of Marina Mahathir or her father, but Malaysia’s future, in short, is more Muslims and more sharia. In other words, Malaysia’s future is firmly in the hands of not ‘Islamophobes’, but of Islamic supremacists.

| 9 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Here is a superb riposte to the ADL's smear of AFDI/SIOA, within a larger and likewise excellent expose of how far the ADL has departed from its founding principles. "Anti-Defamation League Has Strayed from Its Charter," by William A. Levinson in the American Thinker, November 13:

The Anti-Defamation League's original charter is simple, straightforward, and honorable:
The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.

[...] The ADL has also become a facilitator and enabler of the very hate-mongers it claims to oppose.  Mr. Foxman issued this joint statement on hate symbols with Al Sharpton, thus legitimizing this prominent racist and anti-Semite.  The actions of Mr. Sharpton and his National Action Network at Freddy's Fashion Mart speak for themselves, as do Mr. Sharpton's statements about the Crown Heights riots and his role in the Tawana Brawley scandal.  ADL then went even farther by attacking as "Islamophobic" people and organizations that expose anti-Semitism and similar hate-related activities against Christians under color of Islam.

The organization [Stop Islamization of America, SIOA], led by Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, warns of the encroachment of Shari'a, or Islamic law, and encourages Muslims to leave what it describes as the "falsity of Islam."

Adherents of this ideological Islamophobia view Islam as an existential threat to the world, and especially to the "West."

A phobia is an irrational fear of an imaginary danger.  Does the ADL contend that this video, which calls for the annihilation of Jews and proclaims that Islam will rule the word, was produced by people who do not call themselves Muslims?  Is the woman who calls for Jews to "go back to the ovens" in this video (3:20) an actress instead of a person who calls herself a Muslim?  Are these people who call for the bombing of Denmark and the taking of Danish women as war booty movie extras and not militant Muslims?  Is this Islamic cleric who called women who do not wear hijabs "uncovered meat" whom any man is free to rape a figment of Spencer's, Geller's, and our imaginations and therefore a phobia?  Will the ADL treat this massacre of Coptic Christians as an issue like the Armenian genocide, in which "Egyptians and Copts will have to revisit their past"?  Does the ADL deny that a self-appointed sharia court (aka lynch mob) in Spain sentenced a woman to death for "adultery," or that Islamic supremacists are trying to carve out sharia-compliant zones in Europe?  From where we sit, the ADL's condemnation of SIOA makes it a moral accomplice and accessory to all these outrages....

Indeed.

| 11 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

As David Horowitz and I show in our pamphlet Islamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian Future, the term "Islamophobia" is a politically manipulative coinage designed to intimidate critics of Islamic supremacism and jihad into silence.

Claire Berlinski explains how Islamic supremacists from the Muslim Brotherhood devised it for precisely that purpose:

Now here's a point you might deeply consider: The neologism "Islamophobia" did not simply emerge ex nihilo. It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia. If that name dimly rings a bell, it should: I've mentioned it before, and it's particularly important because it was co-founded by Anwar Ibrahim--the hero of Moderate Islam who is now trotting around the globe comparing his plight to that of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. "This loathsome term," he writes,

is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.

In another article concerning the many moderate Muslims whose voices have been drowned out by Saudi-financed Muslim Brotherhood front groups, Muhammad describes the strategy behind the word's invention:

In an effort to silence critics of political Islam, advocates needed to come up with terminology that would enable them to portray themselves as victims. Muhammad said he was present when his then-allies, meeting at the offices of the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) in Northern Virginia years ago, coined the term "Islamophobia."

Muhammad said the Islamists decided to emulate the homosexual activists who used the term "homophobia" to silence critics. He said the group meeting at IIIT saw "Islamophobia" as a way to "beat up their critics."

And Amnesty International is buying: "Panel seeks to end racial, religious prejudice," by Anna Geary for the Daily O'Collegian, November 10:

The Oklahoma State Chapter of Amnesty International is taking strides to combat racial and religious prejudice this Saturday.

"Islamophobia: A Conference on American-Islamic Relations," will feature panelists discussing Muslim-Christian relations, women's rights in Islam, Muslim political concerns and other issues associated with Islam in America. The conference will take place from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. in Murray Hall 035, with catering from the House of Greek.

In light of the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, the event addresses national and worldwide changes in the treatment of Muslims. Matthew Alexander, former head of U.S. military interrogations in Iraq, will discuss the effects of Islamophobic practices on national security in a keynote address.

Admission is free and open to the public. Reservations can be made at stopislamophobiaok@gmail.com.

Want to stop "Islamophobia"? Here is an easy way. Muslims can:

1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively, sincerely, honestly, and in deeds, not just in comforting words, not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people, teaching accordingly in mosques and Islamic schools, and behaving in accord with these new teachings.
3. Teach, again sincerely and honestly, in transparent and verifiable ways in mosques and Islamic schools, the imperative of Muslims coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis, and act accordingly.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach sincerely against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively and honestly work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

If Muslims do those five things, voila! "Islamophobia" will evanesce!

| 10 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Back in 2010, Naser Abdo said he wanted out of the Army in order to:

"...spend his life combating what he called Islamaphobia [sic] and advocating Islam as a peaceful religion.
"I want to use my experience to show Muslims how we can lead our lives," he said. "And to try and put a good positive spin out there that Islam is a good, peaceful religion. We're not all terrorists, you know?"...

Somewhere along the line, he had an "Emily Litella" moment: "Never mind." "More serious charges filed against Abdo," by Farzad Mashood for the Austin American-Statesman, November 8 (thanks to Kenneth):

A federal grand jury today approved more serious charges against an AWOL soldier whom prosecutors said was planning to detonate a bomb at a restaurant frequented by Fort Hood soldiers in Killeen, officials said.
Naser Jason Abdo, 21, is now charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, attempted murder of officers or employees of the United States, two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a federal crime of violence and two counts of possession of a destructive device in furtherance of a federal crime of violence, U.S. Attorney Robert Pitman and Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent in Charge Cory B. Nelson said in a news release.
The new charges have minimum penalties ranging from five years to life in prison, the news release said.
Investigators have said they found a handgun, an article on bomb-making, gunpowder, shrapnel and pressure cookers in a Killeen motel where Abdo was staying. A bomb-making article with that same title appears in an al Qaeda magazine, officials have said.
After Abdo was arrested at the motel in July, he told authorities he planned to make two bombs and detonate them in a restaurant where Fort Hood soldiers eat, according to documents filed in the case.
“I think the charges speak for themselves,” U.S. Attorney spokesman Daryl Fields said when asked why prosecutors asked for the new charges.
Abdo’s attorney has said the materials are common items and that he did not posses a fully assembled bomb.
Originally from the Dallas suburb of Garland, Abdo joined the Army in 2009. He soon became a high-profile conscientious objector, saying his Muslim faith conflicted with his military duties. Abdo went absent without leave from Fort Campbell, Ky., over the July Fourth weekend after police charged him with possession of child pornography.
A day after his arrest, a defiant Abdo shouted “Nidal Hasan Fort Hood 2009!” as he was led out of a federal courtroom, an apparent homage to the suspect in the worst mass shooting on a U.S. military installation. Abdo condemned that attack less than a year ago but is now accused of trying to carry out another deadly attack.
Abdo was initially indicted Aug. 9, charged with possession of an unregistered destructive device, possession of a firearm and possession of ammunition by a fugitive from justice; each charge had a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. Those charges remain in effect, but prosecutors will first proceed on charges in today’s indictment, called a superceding indictment.
| 4 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Occasionally people ask me what I mean by referring to Misunderstanders of Islam on this site, or ask me to stop baiting the irony-deficient by doing so. In doing so, I am making a point, of course: we're constantly told by the mainstream media, government and law enforcement that Islam is a peaceful religion that doesn't justify terrorism, and that those who think otherwise are laboring under "misconceptions" or misunderstandings about the religion. Yet that explanation leaves us with the curious phenomenon that so many Muslims apparently misunderstand Islam -- not simply in the fact that they commit violence, but in that they do so explicitly and proudly in the name of Islamic teachings on jihad warfare against unbelievers.

And so here we go again: Muslims in Nigeria murdered 67 people, and all the while they were shouting "Allahu akbar," Allah is greatest. In other words, they were proclaiming that their god was superior to that of the people they were murdering. Apparently they believed that this superiority was manifest in the fact that they were the murderers, rather than the ones who were being murdered.

Then Islamic apologists for jihad terror in the U.S. have the monstrous temerity to portray Muslims as innocent victims of the "Islamophobia" of those who point out that jihad terror, and call for resistance to it. They even portray Muslims as equivalent to German Jews of the 1930s, as if they were innocent victims of a campaign against them that is ultimately genocidal in intent. The analogy ought to appall and disgust every free person. And stories like this present one are one reason why. Jews in Germany perpetrated no aggression, made no predictions of conquest and subjugation of the larger society, and never committed violence in the name of their religion. Modern-day anti-jihadists are fighting for freedom against violent absolutist thugs who justify Islamic violence and array themselves against the freedom of speech and other basic rights. The Leftist/Islamic supremacist Orwellian campaign to demonize anti-jihadists, whitewash jihad, and cast the aggressors as victims is, quite simply, evil.

More on this story. "BREAKING NEWS: Scores Killed In Attack On Nigeria Churches, Police," from BosNewsLife, November 5 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

ABUJA, NIGERIA (BosNewsLife)-- Islamic militants shouting "Allahu Akbar", or 'Allah is great', carried out coordinated gun and bomb attacks on churches and police stations in northern Nigeria, killing at least 67 people and injuring some 100 others, aid workers and witnesses confirmed Saturday, November 5.

Militant group Boko Haram, or 'Western education is a sin', claimed responsibility for the attacks Saturday, November 4, while frightened mourners tried to leave their homes to begin burying their dead.

The group, which seeks strict implementation of Shariah, or Islamic law, across the nation of more than 160 million people, pledged more attacks.

The Red Cross aid group and witnesses said fighting began Friday, November 4, around Damaturu, the capital of Yobe state, when a car bomb exploded outside a three-story building used as a military office and barracks, with many uniformed security agents dying in the blasts.

Lieutenant Colonel Hassan Mohammed told reporters that the "suicide" attackers, driving a black sports utility vehicle, detonated their explosives near the gate of the building, used by the Joint Task Force (JTF), the military unit deployed to curb violence there.

CHURCHES ATTACKED

Several other police stations, a bank and up to six churches were also attacked, residents and aid workers said. Among areas targeted by militants was the Jerusalem area, a predominantly Christian neighborhood, according to witnesses.

One resident, Isa Jakusko, was quoted by French News Agency AFP as saying that city had been thrown into chaos. “There have been several bomb explosions and shooting. As I am talking to you there is still fire exchanges between the attackers and security personnel with the attackers shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’,” he reportedly said....

| 26 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

ObamaTruthBan.jpg


Fantasy-based analysis is now required at the highest levels in Washington. In FrontPage this morning I discuss the new truth-denying policies:

It has been a long time coming, but the Obama Administration has now officially banned the truth. Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole declared Wednesday at a conference in Washington that he had “recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security.” This “reevaluation” will remove all references to Islam in connection with any examination of Islamic jihad terror activity. The Obama Administration has now placed off-limits any investigation of the beliefs, motives and goals of jihad terrorists.

Dwight C. Holton, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, emphasized that training materials for the FBI would be purged of everything politically incorrect: “I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”

Holton said that he had spoken with Attorney General Eric Holder about FBI training materials that Holton claimed were “egregiously false,” and that Holder “is firmly committed to making sure that this is over….we’re going to fix it.” Holton said that this “fix” was particularly urgent because the rejected training materials “pose a significant threat to national security, because they play into the false narrative propagated by terrorists that the United States is at war with Islam.”

Cole suggested that these training materials had done damage domestically as well: “One of the many, tragic legacies of 9/11 has been an increase in prejudice, discrimination and hatred directed against persons of the Muslim and Sikh faiths and those who are, or who are mistakenly perceived to be, of Arab or South Asian descent. Some have wrongly sought to blame the horror of 9/11 on Arab-American, Muslim American, Sikh-American and South Asian American communities. It has led to attacks against places of worship and other hate crimes, to job discrimination, and to the tragic harassment of children in our schools.”

After sketching out this horror tale, Cole declared: “We must never allow our sorrow and anger at the senseless attack of 9/11 to blind us to the great gift of our diversity.” And this, he said, must involve a rejection of the stereotyping of Muslims: “All of us must reject any suggestion that every Muslim is a terrorist or that every terrorist is a Muslim. As we have seen time and again – from the Oklahoma City bombing to the recent attacks in Oslo, Norway – no religion or ethnicity has a monopoly on terror.” It was George Bush, he said, who after 9/11 “made clear to the nation that these terrorist acts were committed by individuals who distort the peaceful religion of Islam,” and now all government analysis of jihad terror would reflect that perspective.

Of course, the controversial training materials did not really claim that all Muslims are terrorists or that all terrorists are Muslims, and it is noteworthy that Cole had to resort to dismissive caricatures to make his point. For in taking this course, the Obama Administration is bowing to pressure from the Hamas-linked Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Islamic advocacy groups. In a Los Angeles Times op-ed that appeared on the same day as the conference in Washington, Salam al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) roundly criticized existing training materials about jihad terror and demanded that the FBI and the Justice Department “issue a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community; establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials; invite experts who have no animosity toward any religion to conduct training about any religious community to law enforcement.”

Al-Marayati complained that training materials reflected “bigoted and inflammatory views on Muslims, including claims that ‘devout’ Muslims are more prone toward violence, that Islam aims to ‘transform a country’s culture into 7th century Arabian ways,’ that Islamic charitable giving is a ‘funding mechanism for combat’ and that the prophet Muhammad was a ‘violent cult leader.’”

In this al-Marayati was simply repeating talking points from an “expose” of FBI training materials by hard-Left journalist Spencer Ackerman in Wired, who has been conducting a campaign for some time to get the bureau to purge its terrorism training seminars of any hint of the truth about the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. Yet like virtually all Leftist and Islamic supremacist critics of anti-jihad and anti-terror material, Ackerman and al-Marayati take for granted that such assertions are false, without bothering to explain how or why. Apparently they believe that their falsity is so self-evident as to require no demonstration; unfortunately, however, there is considerable evidence that they are true, and that in banning such materials, the Obama Administration has essentially banned the truth.

There is more.

| 31 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

National Review this morning is running a hit piece by Matt Duss of the hard-Left Center for American Progress, entitled "Horowitz and Spencer’s Islamophobia." It is a response to this piece by David Horowitz and me.

National Review contacted me yesterday and offered me a chance to reply to Duss's piece at The Corner: "A Response to Matt Duss: Defamation by Any Other Name . . .":

Indicative of Matt Duss’s dishonesty in his response to the article I cowrote with David Horowitz about the manipulative neologism “Islamophobia” is his initial labeling of us as “anti-Muslim activists,” and his characterization of our work as “the dissemination of hateful anti-Muslim ideas.” This appellation is not only inaccurate; it is highly defamatory, as it is intended to mislead Duss’s readers into assuming that we oppose a group of people out of sheer racism or bigotry, rather than a radically intolerant and oppressive ideology.

In reality, neither David Horowitz nor I are “anti-Muslim,” as I have stated many times. It is neither “anti-Muslim” nor “hateful” to stand for human rights for all people, including Muslims, and to defend the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for women, all of which are denied under traditional forms of Sharia.

Duss claims that we are part of “an organized campaign to spread misinformation about the religious faith of millions of Americans” – while denying, with a blithe disregard for self-contradiction, that he is “peddling ‘conspiracy theories’” about us. He makes much of the fact that the reliably Leftist Anti-Defamation League has smeared us also, asking rhetorically, “should the Anti-Defamation League also be lumped among the ‘jihadist apologists’?” Why not? Why should it be surprising that an organization that consistently follows a far-Left political line would follow it in this also?

Above all, however, like the CAP report itself, Duss does not and cannot provide any evidence either that any such “organized campaign to spread misinformation” exists, or that anything that Horowitz or I or any of the other targeted “Islamophobes” have said is false. He does try, however. He quotes, as if it is self-evidently false, my statement that Islam “is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers,” but offers no refutation of it.

If Duss can produce evidence of another major world religion with a developed doctrine or tradition of warfare against unbelievers (the Crusades, for those who may wish to toss them in here, did not proceed on the basis of any such Christian doctrine; no sect of Christianity ever taught as a matter of faith that believers were obligated to make war upon unbelievers), or that the sects of Islam and schools of Islamic law do not contain such developed doctrines and traditions, I will duly retract. But with Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious institution in Sunni Islam, endorsing (as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community”) a manual of Islamic law that declares that Muslims must wage war “upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax,” Duss may find such a refutation rough going.

Duss shows a similar lack of knowledge of Islamic doctrine and law when he attempts to refute my statement that “there is no form of Sharia that does not contain… [the] death penalty for apostasy” by asserting that I am “obviously ignorant of the manner in which Islam is practiced by millions of sharia-adherent Muslims in the United States.” The ignorance is his: Muslims in the U.S. do not adhere to Sharia in its fullness, as no less an authority than the Ground Zero Mosque imam Faisal Abdul Rauf recently affirmed when he said that “the only truly clashing area” between Islamic law and modern Western society “is the penal code, and no Muslim has the intention of introducing that to America.” So if Rauf affirms that Muslims in America do not adhere to the Sharia penal code, and Duss affirms that Muslims in America are “sharia-adherent,” whom should we believe? I will go with the internationally renowned imam over the non-Muslim Leftist ideologue, thank you. And as for whether or not there is actually a form of Sharia, that is, a school of Islamic jurisprudence, that does not teach that apostates deserve death, I challenge Duss to find it. But he will search in vain.

Duss then claims that “the unmistakable implication of these claims is that all observant Muslims should be viewed with suspicion simply by virtue of being observant Muslims,” and that “that’s obviously Islamophobic.” In reality, the unmistakable implication of these facts is only that there are aspects of traditional Islamic law that are incompatible with Constitutional values. Here again, Rauf himself says nothing less. Is he, too, an “Islamophobe”?

In concluding his new smear piece, Duss complains that National Review published our article in the first place, and pleads that we be read out of honorable American conservatism. Here he exposes his real agenda in all its ugliness. Duss’s Center for American Progress, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and other Leftist and Islamic supremacist groups are conducting an ongoing campaign to discredit and marginalize everyone who dares to stand up against the jihad and Islamic supremacism. They are bent on destroying every last individual who does not adopt a warmly positive stance toward the spread of Sharia in the West and all other manifestations of the advancing jihad. The stakes are very high. If we don't resist this Islamic supremacist thuggery, Duss and his Islamic supremacist allies will succeed in stamping out all discussion of the truth about Islam and jihad, thereby rendering us mute and defenseless before its advance. That’s why we have to resist now, at every step, and continue to expose this propagandistic “Islamophobia” campaign.

See also David Horowitz's response to Duss here.

| 7 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

SpencerIslamophobia.jpg


In Human Events this morning I discuss who is really responsible for suspicion of Muslims in the U.S.:

The idea that hatred and bigotry motivates suspicion of Muslims in the U.S. has become so commonplace that Muslims are now claiming it is even behind the prosecution of jihad terror cases.

Last Friday, a federal jury convicted three North Carolina Muslims, Omar Aly Hassan, Ziyad Yaghi, and Hysen Sherifi, of plotting jihad terror attacks against the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Va., as well as against targets abroad. According to prosecutors, the primary motive of the three was to kill those whom they believed to be enemies of Islam. But after the verdict was announced, Hysen Sherifi’s mother shouted that the prosecutors were “racist vultures.”

This is the same old story we have seen played out so many, many, many times: Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, instead of owning up to what they tried to do for their religion and facing their punishment like the warriors they claim to be, Islamic jihadists and their supporters claim victim status. They grant nothing, they admit nothing.

Although this is a transparent attempt to deflect scrutiny and avoid suspicion, it actually arouses more suspicion of Muslims in the U.S., because people aren’t stupid: They see stories like the one about this North Carolina jihad plot and know that racism and post-9/11 paranoia had nothing to do with this conviction, which was based on clear evidence that was duly weighed by an impartial jury.

People know that concerns about Muslims in America stem not from bigotry, but from the numerous jihad terror plots that have been hatched in the name of Islam. And they see the disingenuousness and finger-pointing of Muslim leaders in America who should be, if they really were what they claim to be, acknowledging the problem of jihadist sentiments among Muslims in the U.S., and working sincerely to root it out. If Muslim groups in America ever even once admitted that there really was a problem of young Muslims turning to jihad terror in this country, then a great deal of the suspicion of Muslims in America would dissipate, because non-Muslims would see that Muslim leaders were at least making a good-faith effort to deal with the problem. Instead, they don’t even admit that there is a problem.

When suspicions arise, however, even that doesn’t make Muslim leaders in the U.S. start to be more honest. Instead, they ascribe it to a rise in “Islamophobia”—for example, the prominent Muslim spokesman Reza Aslan is traveling around the country peddling the claim that “whatever is fearful, whatever is frightening, whatever is uncomfortable, is being tagged as Islam.”

This is so absurd it beggars belief: Aslan pretends that jihad terror plots are not happening, and that concern about Muslims in this country is therefore sheer nativism and bigotry. His sleazy dishonesty, however, then ends up creating more of the concern about Muslims here that he sees as evidence of this nativism, so that actually he himself and others like him, as well as Muslims like Omar Aly Hassan, Ziyad Yaghi, and Hysen Sherifi, are the ones who are really responsible for any suspicion of Muslims that actually exists....

There is more.

| 2 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

They've learned well from Islamic groups in the West: all criticism is an act of hatred. All disapproval of various Islamic teachings and practices is an act of hatred. All accusations of wrongdoing are acts of hatred and the fruits of thoughtcrime.

"'US after fueling Iranophobia in world'," from Iran's own PressTV, October 14:

Iran's Permanent Ambassador to the UNESCO Mohammad-Reza Majidi describes Washington's latest allegations against Iran are part of the US Iranophobia project.
Majidi told IRNA in Paris on Friday that President Barack Obama entered the White House with a slogan of "change," however, like his predecessors he is dependent on different lobbies.

Wink-wink. They get more specific below.

The Iranian envoy said the US administration has created the recent media hype in an attempt to cover up its failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to divert attention from the nationwide protest rallies against poverty, unemployment, corporatism, social inequality, and other shortcomings.
Majidi said that the latest anti-Iran plot is in line with Islamophobia projected managed by the US.
On Tuesday, the US Justice Department accused Iran of involvement in a plot to assassinate Saudi Arabian Ambassador to Washington, Adel Al-Jubeir, with help from a suspected member of a Mexican drug cartel.
Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast rejected the accusation, saying such 'ludicrous' claims hinged on the hostile joint stances adopted by the US and Israel against the country.
Iran's envoy to the UN, Mohammad Khazaei, has also filed a complaint against the United States, and described the anti-Iranian allegations as an “insult to the intelligence” of the people of the world.
“We are used to the baseless allegations made by some US officials over the past three decades, but the big lie they have told today is so unfounded that it sounds like the work of Hollywood's scenario writers,” Khazaei said in an interview with CNN on Wednesday.
“It is a major insult to the intelligence of ordinary people in the US and the world,” he added.

Obligatory:

The latest accusations come as the United States and its staunch ally, Israel, have devised numerous anti-Iran plots over the past years, including the targeted assassination of Iranian scientists.
| 18 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

InstConstAward.jpg


Friday evening I was in Baltimore, Maryland, speaking before a packed house at the Institute On The Constitution -- the largest crowd they had had in nine years of featuring weekly speakers. At the beginning of the evening they surprised me with the plaque above, an honor as great as it was unexpected.

And while I do get death threats regularly, the favored device of Islamic supremacists in the West to silence their opponents is not assassination, but character assassination. The clownish Islamic supremacist Reza Aslan was on the road last weekend as well, peddling his "Islamophobia" snake oil to the hapless students at Hope College in Holland, Michigan. And in the course of his talk, he returned, as always, to the chief object of his obsession.

One of the most ridiculous aspects of our silly age is that utter mediocrities and intellectual flotsam and jetsam like Reza Aslan, who aren't capable of independent thought or of defending their own positions except with lies and scorn, are lauded and lionized by the clueless and compromised elites, solely because they mouth the proper politically correct opinions.

"Hope College speaker says bias against Islam prompted by ignorance, fear," by Greg Chandler for The Grand Rapids Press, October 8 (thanks to James):

HOLLAND — Ten years after the Sept. 11 attacks, anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States is at an all-time high.

What’s particularly disconcerting, says Reza Aslan, is that such beliefs have become increasingly part of the American mainstream, showing up in comments by members of Congress and commentators on Fox News.

“It’s become a receptacle in which Americans are throwing their fears and anxieties about the economy, their fears about the changing political landscape, their fears about the changing racial landscape in this country,” said Aslan, a contributing editor at The Daily Beast and author of the bestselling book “No god but God: The Origins, Evolution and Future of Islam,” who spoke this week at Hope College’s Critical Issues Symposium.

“Whatever is fearful, whatever is frightening, whatever is uncomfortable, is being tagged as Islam.”...

This is so absurd it beggars belief. if Americans have "fears and anxieties" about Islam, it isn't because of the economy, or the "changing political landscape" (whatever that means, but Aslan probably doesn't mean Obama's imploding approval numbers), or the "changing racial landscape" in this country. Americans are concerned about Islam because of Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; and Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; and Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; and Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; and Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; and Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; and Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber; and many others like them who have plotted and/or committed mass murder in the name of Islam and motivated by its texts and teachings.

But for Aslan, of course, this is all my fault:

Aslan, an associate professor of creative writing at the University of California at Riverside, has been involved in numerous efforts to build bridges between Americans and the Muslim world. A native of Iran whose family escaped to the U.S. during the 1979 Islamic Revolution, he says a well-financed campaign involving such organizations as Jihad Watch, headed by Robert Spencer, has fueled anti-Muslim sentiment.

Aslan was probably here referring to the Center for American Progress "Islamophobia" report, which made much of $40 million donated over a period of nine years to several different organizations. Daniel Pipes notes: "It's pretty rich that CAP, an organization whose 2009 budget was $38,187,695, focuses on 8 organizations receiving about that sum over a period of 9 years."

Aslan also debunks efforts in more than 20 states to pass laws that would ban the establishment of courts based on Muslim law, or Sharia. He says such courts, which would deal primarily with family matters such as marriage and divorce, should not be seen as a threat on America.

“It is literally impossible for Sharia, as penal code, to creep its way into America,” Aslan said. “You’re not going to get to stone people in America tomorrow.”

How about the next day? Seriously, Aslan probably didn't tell his luckless marks at Hope that Sharia has already been used as a determining factor in court cases in 23 states.

The answer to change people’s minds toward Islam is not education, despite Aslan’s role as an educator. He says the answer is building relationships with individual Muslims.

“If you know one Muslim, it cuts in half the negativity rating you have toward Islam,” Aslan said. “If you get to know (a Muslim) as a person, as a human being … it’s hard to maintain that idea of otherness.”

I don't know. I expect that knowing Reza Aslan personally would double a person's "negativity rating" toward Islam.

| 38 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

The concept of an "All-Party Parliamentary Committee on Islamophobia" was was hatched in late 2010. That name is plenty Orwellian, though they could have taken it up a notch and just called themselves the Ministry of Tolerance. It is but one of many recent causes for alarm discussed below.

"Political correctness continues to stifle debate on multiculturalism," by Abhjit Pandya for the Daily Mail, October 4 (thanks to Sean):

Not so long ago I accepted a post for teaching law at one of Britain’s prestigious Universities. On my first hour of arriving I was taken in to meet the Head of Department.
I was told that a student had made a complaint about my appointment, and that the complaint was being investigated. The complaint related to some things I had said in a recent by-election.
I was a little taken aback, not so much because there was a complaint but because it warranted an investigation that would unnecessarily use up taxpayers' money.
This was also a concern from the perspective of the important right to freedom of speech. We were here, after all, talking about matters spoken during an election campaign, which ought not in a democracy, be subject to censure.
What had come out in the by-election was my statement that Islam was 'morally flawed and degenerate in its treatment of women’.
This was supported by the following statement of facts: that Sharia courts now operate in the UK where a woman’s evidence is worth significantly less than a man's [Qur'an 2:282] and where women are not afforded the right to speak in divorce proceedings.
It was also highlighted that the Equality and Human Rights Commission had pointed out that a disproportionate number of Muslim women were unemployed (75%) and it was not right that they were missing out on employment opportunities due to the likely rigidly subservient role women play in Islamic, and also other ethnic minority cultures.
This was not in keeping with the strong movement towards female equality in this country going back to Wollstonecraft, and more recently, Emmeline Pankhurst. The latter fought hard to get women the right to vote.
Sharia courts were desired by immigrants in the UK, due to mass immigration without assimilation. Some immigrants had no need or desire to assimilate, and instead wanted what should be unacceptable, their own laws and culture to govern them.
However it was accepted, and even promoted, by the Labour party as a part of the grand multicultural project for a diverse (i.e. divided) Britain.

This is no exaggeration. The Labour Party did indeed quietly and deliberately undertake a campaign to engineer a "truly multicultural" society in Britain, convinced that it could, would, should, and must be an improvement.

Last year a British freedom of speech society that I chaired (then called the ‘Birkenhead Society’; now called ‘Discourse UK’) overturned the Labour Home Secretary Jacqui’ Smith’s Ban on the Dutch MP Geert Wilders speaking in Parliament on the subject of multiculturalism and Islam.
I was shocked that the Labour Government was willing to ban speech in Parliament (reasoned debate being a clear expression, and an embodiment, of the best of British culture) in order to preserve multiculturalism and alien cultures through political correctness.
Fearing that we were going down the road of Medieval censorship (I had recently read that Elizabeth I used to cut the ears of playwrights who poked fun at her), we desperately sought to raise funds to litigate against the Home Secretary.
Fortunately the judges were not as daftly and lightly dismissive of freedom of speech as the Labour government had been and the ban from discourse in Parliament was removed.
However what Geert Wilders's ban by Labour’s Jaqui Smith demonstrates is that multiculturalism has been used, and still is, by governments to censor discussion of important social issues within immigrant groups.
These issues include the treatment of women, teaching antisemitism, and physically assaulting homosexuals.

In a bizarre game of "rock, paper, scissors" with fashionable liberal causes, the fear of "Islamophobia" trumps that of "homophobia," leading authorities to look the other way even from actual assaults by Muslims on gay Britons.

Of greater concern now regarding censure is the recently created ‘All-Party Parliamentary Committee on Islamophobia’.
This is exactly what it sounds like. A Soviet style panel of censorship, promoting political correctness built on the sensitivities of a few immigrant minorities.

It is even discriminating among immigrant minorities. There is one protected class elevated over all others.

The word ‘Islamophobia’ is not just broad and ambiguous; the phrase ‘phobia’ is clearly suggestive of censuring thought in the Orwellian sense.

All disapproval now constitutes hate. All criticism is now incitement. The aim is to enforce silence through fear.

All in all the Committee is a classic, worrying, multicultural gift that seeks to curtail existing and traditional liberties to accommodate alien cultures sensitivities through political correctness.
Furthermore, it aids some alien cultures in using their subjective sensitivities to create a more illiberal land through censorship and curtailment of freedom of speech.
What concerns me most of all about this ‘Islamophobia Committee’, is that, due to political correctness, the debate as to the mistreatment of women and gays in amongst some ethnic groups could be censored.

It already is.

Neither the existence of this daft committee, nor the censoring of discussion about the impact of immigration our culture, can be justifiable. It merely aids Labour’s grand multicultural project of destroying British culture.

See above.

We must never cower into giving away our liberties, such as freedom of speech, by political correctness brought about by the few that seek to be sensitive to discussion, whether immigrants or not.
| 10 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

On September 30, NRO published an edited version of this piece that I cowrote with David Horowitz, under the title “A Rational Fear of Islamism,” Today FrontPage has the original version:

In recent months several reports have appeared to a generally uncritical reception in the press, which purport to expose alleged conspiracies organized by “Islamophobes” against American citizens who mean us no harm. These reports single out for condemnation a dozen prominent conservative figures (and mostly the same dozen) who have publicly criticized the misogyny, bigotry and terrorism promoted by many (but not all) Islamic institutions and religious texts.

The term “Islamophobia” itself was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the political fountainhead of Islamic terror, having spawned al-Qaeda and created Hamas. Not coincidently, the reports themselves have been produced by Brotherhood fronts like CAIR, and jihadist apologists like the Southern Poverty Law Center. But the latest and most elaborate Islamophobia report, transparently derivative of its predecessors, has been issued by the Center for American Progress, which is a brain trust of the Democratic Party. It thus marks a disturbing development in this ugly campaign.

On examination, the term “Islamophobia” is designed to create a modern-day thought crime, while the campaign to suppress it is an effort to abolish the First Amendment where Islam is concerned. The purpose of the suffix – phobia — is to identify any concern about troubling Islamic institutions and actions as irrational, or worse as a dangerous bigotry that should itself be feared.

Is fear of terrorists inspired by Islam irrational? There have been 17,800 terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims in the name of Allah since 9/11. Is it unreasonable to be concerned that 30,000 shoulder-ready surface-to-air missiles have been recently gone missing in the Muslim nation of Libya, where both government and rebels the Islamic jihad against America and the West?

Would not a reasonable person be concerned about the attacks plotted and carried out by Muslims in the United States who claim to be inspired by the Koran and who regard themselves as holy warriors in the jihad declared by Osama bin Laden and other Muslim fanatics? These Muslim attacks include the successful massacre of unarmed American soldiers at Fort Hood by Nidal Hassan, a self-declared Muslim warrior whose anti-infidel rantings were ignored by the military brass.

These Muslim terrorists include Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; and Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; and Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; and Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; and Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; and Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; and Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber; and many others.

If the FBI and law enforcement agencies had not had serious fears of Muslim fanatics, had not been possessed by a species of “Islamophobia,” all those would-be terrorist attacks would be successful attacks and carry long lists of dead innocents – infidels – along with their names....

There is more.

| 2 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

In "A Rational Fear of Islamism" in National Review today, David Horowitz and I discuss "Islamophobia," showing that not all fears are irrational, nor criticism unwarranted.

In recent months, several reports have appeared to a generally uncritical reception in the press, which purport to expose alleged conspiracies organized by “Islamophobes” against American citizens who mean us no harm. These reports single out for condemnation a dozen prominent conservative figures (and mostly the same dozen) who have publicly criticized the misogyny, bigotry, and terrorism promoted by many (but not all) Islamic institutions and religious texts.

The term “Islamophobia” itself was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the political fountainhead of Islamic terror, having spawned al-Qaeda and created Hamas. Not coincidently, the reports themselves have been produced by Brotherhood fronts like CAIR, and jihadist apologists like the Southern Poverty Law Center. But the latest and most elaborate Islamophobia report, transparently derivative of its predecessors, has been issued by the Center for American Progress, which is a brain trust of the Democratic party. It thus marks a disturbing development in this ugly campaign.

On examination, the term “Islamophobia” is designed to create a modern-day thought crime, while the campaign to suppress it is an effort to abolish the First Amendment where Islam is concerned. The purpose of the suffix — phobia — is to identify any concern about troubling Islamic institutions and actions as irrational, or worse as a dangerous bigotry that should itself be feared.

Is fear of terrorists inspired by Islam irrational? There have been 17,800 terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims in the name of Allah since 9/11. Is it unreasonable to be concerned that 30,000 shoulder-ready surface-to-air missiles have recently gone missing in the Muslim nation of Libya, where both government and rebels support the Islamic jihad against America and the West?

Would not a reasonable person be concerned about the attacks plotted and carried out by Muslims in the United States who claim to be inspired by the Koran and who regard themselves as holy warriors in the jihad declared by Osama bin Laden and other Muslim fanatics? These Muslim attacks include the successful massacre of unarmed American soldiers at Fort Hood by Nidal Hassan, a self-declared Muslim warrior whose anti-infidel rantings were ignored by the military brass.

These Muslim terrorists include Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; and Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; and Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; and Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; and Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; and Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; and Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; and Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber; and many others.

If the FBI and law-enforcement agencies had not had serious fears of Muslim fanatics, had not been possessed by a species of “Islamophobia,” all those would-be terrorist attacks would be successful attacks and carry long lists of dead innocents — infidels — along with their names....

There is more.

| 29 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

There was a jihad murder in Frankfurt last March. The jihadist murderer was inspired by a jihadist rapper in Germany. They've seen Islamic honor killing. In response, German authorities are stepping up monitoring of mosques and of Islamic communities in Germany, right?

Of course not. Get real. They're planning surveillance of "Islamophobes" -- i.e., those who want to resist the jihad and the advance of Sharia oppression in Germany. Germany Suicide Watch Update: "Authorities Debate Surveillance of Islamophobes," from Spiegel, September 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Officials from the BfV, Germany's domestic intelligence agency, will discuss the country's increasingly vocal Islamophobe scene at a meeting on Thursday. There have been calls to put right-wing populist and anti-Muslim groups under increased surveillance.

Islamophobes in Germany could come under increased surveillance by the country's domestic intelligence agency. There are concerns that the anti-Muslim scene is becoming increasingly dangerous, and some intelligence officials want it to be subject to greater scrutiny, despite stringent German privacy laws.

The subject will be discussed at a meeting on Thursday between the president of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), Heinz Fromm, and the agency's leaders in the 16 German states. Officials in Bavaria are considering putting right-wing populists under observation as a new form of extremism, while Hamburg has declared it is watching an internet discussion forum similar to anti-Islamic website "Politically Incorrect" (PI).

A spokesman from the North Rhine-Westphalia interior ministry told the Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper that PI was not currently under observation by intelligence agents, but that the blog was being read closely and that the opinions and comments published on it were "undemocratic." The xenophobic comments were calculated to "incite young people", the spokesman added.

Most states are reluctant, however, and the federal interior ministry has also not yet committed itself on the matter. In essence, the question is whether the hatred of Muslims is enough to endanger freedom of religion and international understanding -- or whether it is a radical but legitimate expression of opinion by individual authors within the limits of the constitution.

Are Muslims in Germany being murdered? Brutalized? Or are the victims of jihad the only ones about whom that can be said?

| 24 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca.

And what is the Muslim American Society? The Muslim Brotherhood. "In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation's major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members." -- Chicago Tribune, 2004, via the Muslim Brotherhood's English-language website, Ikhwanweb.

Wajahat Ali was one of the five authors of the hard-Left Soros-funded Center for American Progress's attack piece "Fear, Inc." Ali has revealed in this video that he was a Board member of the Muslim Students Association. The Muslim Students Association was established by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Center for American Progress needs to come clean about its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

"Congressman Promotes Fear Inc. ‘Islamophobia’ Event," by Ryan Mauro for FrontPageMagazine, September 12:

The office of Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first elected Muslim congressman, is promoting an event in Congress on September 13 to publicize the Center for American Progress’ report, “Fear Inc: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America.” [...]

“The report identifies the funding streams that support anti-Muslim activities, the intellectual nexus of the Islamophobia network, the grassroots players and organizations that help spread messages of hate, the media amplifiers of Islamophobia, and the elected officials who support anti-Muslim causes,” said an e-mailed statement from Rep. Ellison.

Rep. Ellison has repeatedly worked with Muslim Brotherhood fronts like the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America, both of which were labeled as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the Holy Land Foundation trial. A judge ruled in 2009 that the federal government had “ample evidence” to connect them to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. His 2008 pilgrimage to Mecca was sponsored by the Muslim American Society, another Brotherhood affiliate. He has also received donations from major players in the Brotherhood’s American networks. He defends CAIR, and lashes out against those who talk about the ideological roots of the Islamist threat...

The “Fear Inc.” report has been extensively rebutted here at FrontPage Magazine. It was published by the Center for American Progress, a left-wing think-tank led by John Podesta, the former chief-of-staff for President Clinton, with an annual budget of at least $25 million, and possibly as high as $38 million. It took part in the creation of Media Matters for America, a non-profit that seeks to counter perceived right-wing bias in the media....

| 19 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Far-Left pseudo-journalist and jihadist propaganda tool Eli Clifton demonstrates the level of sophisticated analysis that went into the Center for American Progress "Islamophobia" report that he coauthored, "Fear, Inc.," in a petulant, defensive, and typically fact-free screed at Think Progress about the reaction to his report:

5.) Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer wrote on Human Events that the report’s authors must all be jihadists because “Fear, Inc.”, “ignores jihad activity altogether, portraying Muslims as victims and demonizing all who stand in the way of the misogynistic and unjust agenda of the Islamic jihad, whether advanced by violent or nonviolent means. It thus reveals itself to be just another tool of those same jihadists.”

So Clifton claims that I say that "the report’s authors must all be jihadists" and then purports to substantiate this claim by producing a quote in which I say that the report is a "tool of...jihadists." So because the report is a tool of jihadists, Clifton thinks I am calling him a jihadist. Eli Clifton is apparently unable to distinguish between a tool and the one who uses it. Eli Clifton must be his hammer.

Not coincidentally, I challenged both Clifton and his coauthor, Wajahat Ali, to a debate on whether Islamic jihad or "Islamophobia" constituted the greater threat. Neither accepted. This is no surprise. They cannot sustain or defend their position on its merits, and they know it. So much for the Left's vaunted intellectual superiority: here again, we see their desire to extinguish free speech and silence their opposition, which is the intent of their report, for they can not and will not engage that opposition intellectually.

| 6 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

islamophobia-300.jpg


The far-Left Center for American Progress last week issued “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America,” the latest in an ever-lengthening string of markedly similar “exposés” claiming that the problem America and the world face is not Islamic jihad, but “Islamophobia.” These reports all claim to show that the anti-jihad movement in America is a sinister cabal of well-funded, dishonest hacks stirring up hate against innocent Muslims in order to profit from it. Like them, it is highly distorted and markedly unfair, twisting the facts and cooking the data in order not to enlighten but to propagandize -- and ignoring the reality of Islamic jihad activity altogether.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is in the midst of a full-scale, years-long campaign at the United Nations to compel the West to criminalize any honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to recruit and motivate terrorists; these “Islamophobia” reports serve the OIC’s agenda of ruling discussion of jihad activity off limits and thereby rendering the West mute and defenseless in the face of the advancing jihad. This pamphlet reveals the sinister agenda behind the "Islamophobia" campaign.

In 1989, the Ayatollah Khomeini, the ruler of the Islamic Republic of Iran, issued a fatwa calling on all Muslims worldwide to murder the novelist Salman Rushdie for insulting the Muslim prophet Muhammad and Islam. Rushdie's crime? Blasphemy or Islamophobia. Since then we have seen worldwide violent Muslim protests over cartoons, blasphemy laws in Europe, prosecutions of notable opponents of Islamic terror like Oriana Fallaci and Geert Wilders and the demonization of courageous opponents of Islamic imperialism and terror in the West. And now the inventors of the concept of "Islamophobia" are more intent than ever to destroy the freedom of speech and end all examination of jihadist motives and goals -- hoping thereby to end all resistance to jihad.

This vitally important essay by David Horowitz and Robert Spencer describes the origins of the word "Islamophobia" as a coinage of the Muslim Brotherhood, traces the campaign in the U.N. to criminalize the criticism of Islam and exposes its role in the Brotherhood's campaign to "destroy the American civilization from within." An absolutely essential primer of the global struggle against religious intolerance and totalitarianism.

Order your copy of Islamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian Future here.

| 33 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Predictably, Muslims are claiming victim status over the riot they provoked at Rye Playland yesterday. Their claims might have more credibility if they didn't always claim to be innocent victims of "Islamophobia" in any and every conflict with the filthy kuffar.

"Muslims, police scuffle at Rye Playland over amusement park’s head scarf ban; 15 arrests made," by Corinne Lestch and Bill Hutchinson for the New York Daily News, August 31 (thanks to Keith):

Rye Playland was shut down Tuesday after cops scuffled with Muslims upset that women wearing head scarves were barred from the rides, witnesses said.

Fifteen people, including three women, were charged with disorderly conduct and assault in the chaos, authorities said.

The Westchester County park was packed with Muslims celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr - the holiday marking the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

One woman, Entisai Ali, began arguing with cops over the amusement park's head scarf, or hijab, rule, said Dena Meawad, 18, of Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.

The ban, which is not Muslim specific, was imposed about 3 years ago mostly to prevent hats from falling onto the tracks of roller coasters and other rides, park officials said.

"The cops started getting loud with her and she started getting loud, too. They pushed her on the ground and arrested her," Meawad said.

Her cousin, Kareem Meawad, 17, went to try to protect the woman and was beaten by cops and also arrested, she added. Her brother, Issam Meawad, 20, was pushed to the ground and taken into custody when he tried to help his cousin, she said.

"She just wanted to get on a ride. That was it," Dena Meawad said of the initial confrontation. "It's clear, this all happened because we're Muslim."

John Hodges, chief inspector of Westchester County Public Safety, insisted that police did not use excessive force.

He said up to 100 cops from surrounding departments converged on the park.

Two park rangers were injured in the melee, prompting felony assault charges against two people arrested, officials said.

The ugly incident happened just after 1 p.m. The event was organized by the Muslim American Society of New York, and attracted 3,000 Muslims from Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Westchester County.

Ali's sister, Ayman Alrabah, 24, of Brooklyn said her husband, brother and father were all tackled by cops and put into handcuffs when they tried to help her sister.

Alrabah said she was unaware of the head-scarf rule until she and her sister tried to get on the park's Dragon Coasters.

"We requested a refund and all of a sudden an argument became a riot," Alrabah said. "Cops came. They were hitting my brother, my dad. My husband was on the floor and they were handcuffing him.

She said her 4-year-old son was "traumatized" by seeing his father arrested.

"They treated us like animals, like we were nothing," Alrabah said. "They came with their dogs and sticks. We came to have fun."

The park was closed for about two hours because of the fracas. It reopened at about 6 p.m.

Peter Tartaglia, deputy commissioner of Westchester County Parks, said the Muslim American Society of New York was warned in advance of the rule barring head scarves on rides for safety reasons.

"Part of our rules and regulations, which we painstakingly told them over and over again, is that certain rides you cannot wear any sort of headgear," Tartaglia said. "It's a safety issue for us on rides, it could become a projectile."

Many Muslims were given refunds as they left the park disappointed.

"In this heightened state of Islamaphobia, a woman wearing a hajib is an easy target these days," said Zead Ramadan, president of the [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations - New York. "Unfortunately, this turned ugly due to a lot of miscommunication."

There isn't actually any "heightened state of Islamophobia" except from the propaganda produced by Zead Ramadan's Hamas-linked CAIR and allied groups. In reality, hate crimes against Muslims are infrequent:

Anti-Jewish attacks 70% of hate crimes, anti-Muslim attacks 9% of hate crimes -- Senate to hold hearings on "anti-Muslim bigotry"

Just-released New York 2009 report: Hate crimes against Jews: 251. Hate crimes against Muslims: 11.

Backlash! Anti-Muslim hate crimes only eight percent of hate crimes, far less than those against Jews

| 63 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

FearInc.Jihad.jpg


In "Fear, Inc.: The Business of Saving Jihad From 'Islamophobia'" in Human Events this morning, I discuss the irony of the release of the latest slick and well-funded "Islamophobia" report just as more jihad attacks are being perpetrated and more jihad plots uncovered:

This past week, “Mohammed K.,” a Muslim teenager in Maryland, was arrested for plotting jihad murder along with Colleen LaRose​, aka “Jihad Jane​,” who tried to recruit jihadists to kill Lars Vilks, a Swedish cartoonist who dared poke fun at Islam’s prophet Muhammad. Mohammed K. also wrote in an Islamic jihadist chat room about carrying out a Columbine-style shooting in his high school in the name of Islam, because “the kids who study in my school proudly state that their parents work in NSA [National Security Agency] and FBI.”

Also last week, two Muslims beat unconscious an ex-Muslim author, Paris Dipersico, for writing a book, Wake Up Call, in which he wrote: “Islam is a religion of ‘peace’ and Muslims will kill you to prove it.” Dipersico said that his attackers “called me a Jew in Arabic and said the Jews are paying you to write this against Islam.” Other Muslims threatened to kill him.

Meanwhile, here again in the last few days, Islamic jihadists murdered 18 people in a jihad/martyrdom suicide car bombing at the United Nations headquarters in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja. Other Islamic jihadists murdered 18 more people in a jihad/martyrdom suicide attack in Algeria. In Somalia, Islamic jihadists beheaded 11 people, in accord with the Koran’s exhortation to behead unbelievers (47:4). In Pakistan, a Muslim gang put a gun to the head of Mehek Masih, a 14-year-old Christian girl, at her home. As they kidnapped her, one of them told her parents that he was going to force Mehek to “convert to Islam and become my mistress.”

And as all this was happening, the far-Left Center for American Progress issued “Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America,” the latest in an ever-lengthening string of markedly similar “exposés” claiming that the problem America and the world face is not Islamic jihad, but “Islamophobia.” These reports all claim to show that the anti-jihad movement in America is a sinister cabal of well-funded, dishonest hacks stirring up hate against innocent Muslims in order to profit from it. Like them, it is highly distorted and markedly unfair, twisting the facts and cooking the data in order not to enlighten but to manipulate, not to educate but to propagandize.

And all that Islamic jihad activity just in the past week? “Fear, Inc.” gives no indication that any of it ever happened....

There is more.

| 5 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

Fear, Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America,” from the Center for American Progress is just the latest in an ever-lengthening string of markedly similar “exposés” of so-called “Islamophobes.” Each purports to show that the anti-Sharia movement in America is a sinister cabal of well-funded, dishonest hacks stirring up hate against innocent Muslims in order to profit from it. Each has been highly distorted and markedly unfair, twisting the facts and cooking the data in order not to enlighten but to manipulate, not to educate but to propagandize.

Just in recent months there have been two other reports, both almost identical in substance to “Fear, Inc.”: the far-Left Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Jihad Against Islam” and the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations’ “Same Hate, New Target: Islamophobia and Its Impact in the United States.” Each of these is lavishly produced, printed on glossy paper and full of colorful illustrations. With the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in the midst of a full-scale, years-long campaign at the United Nations to compel the West to criminalize any honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to recruit and motivate terrorists, it would be useful to know who is funding these slickly produced reports; but, true to form, the mainstream media instead glosses over the radical and genuinely sinister ties of the organizations that produced them, and repeats their agitprop as if it were fact.

But it isn’t. In what follows I must, for reasons of time, limit myself largely to responding to the report’s attacks on me; however, the “Fear, Inc.” attacks on my colleagues and others doing similar work are no more substantive or less manipulative and propagandistic.

The misinformation starts on the first page, when the “Fear, Inc.” authors call me “one of the anti-Muslim misinformation scholars we profile in this report.” The term “anti-Muslim” is immediate evidence of the manipulative, propagandistic nature of this report: my work, and the work of the other scholars and activists demonized in “Fear, Inc.,” has never been against Muslims in the aggregate or any people as such, but rather against an ideology that denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people. In fact, years ago at Jihad Watch I had an exchange with an English convert to Islam. I said: “I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc.” Is all that “anti-Muslim”? My correspondent thought so. He responded: “So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims.”

In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion. To the extent that they are, these facts have to be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But it is not “anti-Muslim” to wish freedom of conscience and equality of rights on the Islamic world -- quite the contrary.

The report also contains a – by now obligatory – lengthy excursus on Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik: “While these bloggers and pundits were not responsible for Breivik’s deadly attacks, their writings on Islam and multiculturalism appear to have helped create a world view, held by this lone Norwegian gunman, that sees Islam as at war with the West and the West needing to be defended.” While granting that we are not responsible for Breivik’s acts, the report also takes pains to point out that “Robert Spencer and his blog were cited 162 times in the nearly 1,500-page manifesto of Anders Breivik, the confessed Norway terrorist who claimed responsibility for killing 76 people, mostly youths.” Not surprisingly, it doesn’t mention that I have never sanctioned or justified violence, or that Breivik was plotting violence in the 1990s, before I had published anything about Islam, or that he complained that I was not recommending violence, or that he recommended making common cause with jihadists, which I would never do – indicating that his “manifesto” is actually ideologically incoherent, and not a legitimate counter-jihad document at all. These facts are not mentioned in “Fear, Inc.,” because they would interfere with its propagandistic agenda.

As for the claim that Breivik committed his murders because of the worldview we had created that “sees Islam at war with the West,” “Fear, Inc.” is also silent about the many Muslims who have declared that they are indeed at war with the West, in the name of Islam. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said: “Have no doubt... Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world.” CAIR cofounder and longtime Board chairman Omar Ahmad said in 1998: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.” (He now denies saying this, but the original reporter sticks by her story.) The prominent American Muslim leader Siraj Wahhaj said in 2002: “If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.” The most influential Islamic cleric in the world today, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, has said: “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor, after being expelled from it twice.”

True to form for these “Islamophobia” reports, “Fear, Inc.” ignores such statements and many others like them, attempting to create the impression that the only ones responsible for the idea that Islam is “at war with the West” are the “Islamophobes.”

Without offering any substantive refutation, “Fear, Inc.” dismisses as “inaccurate and perverse” my statement that Islam is “the only religion in the world that has a developed doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates violence against unbelievers and mandates that Muslims must wage war in order to establish the hegemony of the Islamic social order all over the world.” What is “inaccurate and perverse” is the report’s denial of this, since it is a matter of objective verification that all the mainstream Islamic sects and schools of Islamic jurisprudence do indeed teach that the Islamic umma must wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law. The report does not and cannot produce any evidence that Islam does not contain sects and schools that teach this.

Most of what “Fear, Inc.” says about me is just name-calling, but it makes an attempt at substance with this: “Spencer’s views on Islam—and his credibility in discussing Islam at all—are challenged by scholars at his own alma mater. He has ‘no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever,’ according to Islamic scholar Carl W. Ernst, Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Instead, Professor Ernst says Spencer selectively uses textual, religious evidence to mainstream the claim that ‘Islam is not a religion of peace.’ Indeed, Spencer gives misplaced credence to the ‘Sharia threat’ argument that is then mainstreamed by the Islamophobia network.”

Ernst’s dismissal of my work on the basis of my having “no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever,” besides being false, is completely void of substance: the determination of whether or not one’s work is accurate is not decided by the number of one’s degrees, but by the nature of the work itself. What’s more, Ernst’s claim is especially laughable given the ideological dominance of the far-Left Middle East Studies Association (MESA) among academics in this field today, such that dissenting voices are seldom, if ever, heard. Ernst’s own objectivity, moreover, is in severe doubt after he flew to Tehran in December 2008 to accept an award from Iran’s anti-Semitic, genocide-minded Islamic supremacist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Another compromised authority that “Fear, Inc.” cites is Charles Johnson, the “Little Green Footballs” blogger who several years ago moved from the right to the hard Left, betraying his former friends and posting vicious and arguably libelous false charges about them. For “Fear, Inc.,” Johnson’s blog is “popular” and “right-leaning,” when in fact it is no longer either one.

“Fear, Inc.” likewise trumpets the 2004 Amman Message as a “Sharia-based condemnation of violence from the world’s leading Islamic authorities.” The report deceptively fails to mention, however, that the Amman Message forbids Muslim-on-Muslim violence based on takfir, or declarations by one Muslim group that another is apostate. The Amman Message’s three points, mentioned in “Fear, Inc.,” do not address violence or non-violent jihad activity against non-Muslims at all, and the Amman Message’s website actually endorses an undefined “legitimate jihad.”

That is indicative of the dishonesty and one-sidedness of this report. The chief indication of that dishonesty is the wildly misleading presentation of financial data – making the sums involved appear much greater than they actually were by lumping together donations given to disparate organizations over a period of many years. When examined closely, the sums involved are actually far lower than those regularly received by Leftist and Islamic supremacist groups such as the ones that have produced the recent “Islamophobia” reports. Hamas-linked CAIR just announced today that it had almost reached its goal of raising $650,000 during Ramadan. I have never received that kind of support for Jihad Watch during any comparable period of time.

An honest presentation about “Islamophobia” would address the American people’s reasonable concern about the continuing series of violent acts committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, and outline ways in which the Muslim community could lessen suspicion against Muslims by cooperating fully and honestly with law enforcement anti-terror activities. But instead, “Fear, Inc.” is designed to portray Muslims as victims and demonize all those who stand in the way of the misogynistic and unjust agenda of the Islamic jihad, whether advanced by violent or non-violent means. As such, it is simply an instrument of that jihad.

UPDATE: Hard-Left pseudo-journalist propagandist Michelle Boorstein of the Washington Post writes a predictably shoddy and biased piece about the report here. It contains absolutely none of the substantive refutation that I posted above, although it links to this point on my name, without alerting readers to the fact that the link on my name would take them to my response to the report. Also, earlier today I sent Boorstein this:

The $42 million figure is wildly misleading. It is an aggregate amount covering many years and many organizations. When are you going to cover the much more substantial funding of hate groups such as Hamas-linked CAIR, the SPLC, etc.?

This is a witch hunt designed to smear and discredit all who dare to speak out against Islamic Sharia-inspired misogyny, denial of the freedom of conscience, etc. Just today I have a story at Jihad Watch about a Muslim apostate whose life was threatened by Islamic supremacists in Norway. Why do you ignore the Westward spread of such Sharia-based thuggery and demonize those who stand for the human rights of such people?

She rendered that as: "Robert Spencer, another subject of the report, said the financial picture it gives is misleading because it lumps together various organizations over time."

Nor does Boorstein's piece contain any of the substantive points that David Horowitz raises here or Pamela Geller here. Boorstein "reports" the already wildly misleading figure of $42 million as "about $50 million."

She has served her masters well, although she does inadvertently reveal the report's true anti-free speech goal of defaming and discrediting freedom fighters: "'This isn’t playing games. We want to end Islamophobia. If we want to do that, we have to identify motivators of this hate industry, marginalize them and demand they be held accountable,' Shakir said." That's Faiz Shakir, one of the authors of the report and a Center for American Progress Vice President.

| 65 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us

In Human Events this morning I discuss the latest Islamic supremacist attempt to demonize and marginalize those who are fighting for freedom:

On Friday, a young Muslim man in New Jersey named Kashif Pervaiz was charged with the murder of his wife, Nazish Noorani, who was shot dead Tuesday night while pushing her 3-year-old son in a stroller on a street in Boonton, N.J. Although the case apparently has nothing whatsoever to do with jihad terrorism, Islamic honor killing, or any such matter, it has been illuminating of the Islamic supremacist strategy to suppress free speech about Islam and jihad in the U.S. today.

Pervaiz, you see, was walking with Noorani when the shooting took place. He had allegedly set up the whole thing with his accomplice mistress, a Boston woman with whom he apparently shares an apartment. And according to the New York Post, Pervaiz initially told police that “three men, one black, one white and one of an uncertain race, called the couple terrorists before opening fire.” That was enough for police to investigate the possibility that the shooting was an anti-Muslim hate crime—that is, until Pervaiz began changing his story, and began to emerge as a suspect.

Islamic supremacists never miss a chance to position Muslims as victims so as to deflect attention away from jihad terror and try to place Islam and the Muslim community beyond reasonable scrutiny. And so even as Pervaiz was starting to equivocate and spin ever-taller tales, the blame game began. I received a tweet from a certain Jawad Rasul, containing a link to one of the initial stories about the murder: “If you have any humanity, you might ponder over this!” Meanwhile, a well-placed source told me that Ibrahim Hooper of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was “salivating and waiting to jump all over” the Noorani murder story. “They are waiting to blame you for everything.”

I wasn’t anywhere near Boonton last Tuesday, so why would CAIR want to blame me for this murder? Because in CAIR’s world, my work exposing the activities of Islamic jihadists and the ways in which they use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and their supremacist beliefs constitutes “hate” and “incitement to violence.” The network thinks they've found confirmation of this in the murder spree of Norwegian psychopath Anders Breivik, because he cited me (along with John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Charles Darwin, Barack Obama, the New York Times and a host of others) in his lengthy and ideologically incoherent “manifesto.”...

There is more.

| 21 Comments
Print | FaceBook | Twitter | Email | Digg this | del.icio.us



Islamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House in 2012.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter



facebook islam


Monthly Archives

Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


World of JudaicaSIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeAmerican Freedom Law CenterJihad Watch Videos
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Divest Terror.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Events
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Loonwatch Exposed
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» Need to Know Show
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» Right Wing News
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator!Amina and Sarah SaidOriana Fallaci Paul WeyrichTashbih SayyedThousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11DominicFree LebanonSderot Media CenteriGoogle Gadget