“A commitment to press freedom is in my blood,” Lawrence Pintak insists in Islam for Journalists, which has been heartily endorsed by Hamas-linked CAIR. Then he proceeds to qualify his commitment to press freedom right out of existence. Referring to the Muhammad cartoons and the Muslim riots that followed them, he says that “many Muslim journalists simply couldn’t understand why Western news organizations would republish the offensive images just because” of a legal right, for “journalism is not supposed to be a weapon”; it is meant “to inform, not inflame.”
This amounts to an endorsement of the idea that Western journalists should censor themselves in accord with Sharia restrictions on criticism of Islam, so as to avoid using journalism as a “weapon” that might “inflame” Muslims. And many eagerly do censor themselves. One university held a seminar on the Muhammad cartoon controversy, they wouldn’t show the cartoons themselves. A publishing house put out a book about the controversy — without reprinting the cartoons. This is not “informing” rather than “inflaming”; it is abject surrender to Sharia blasphemy restrictions.
“Islam for Dummies: A Journalist ‘Guide’ Whitewashes Islam,” by Andrew Harrod in The Blaze, April 8:
“[U]ninformed, inaccurate or consciously provocative journalism” concerning Islam worries Lawrence Pintak, founding dean of Washington State University’s Edward R. Murrow College of Communication.
Unfortunately, Pintak’s remedy to this problem, the online guide “Islam for Journalists” edited by Pintak, betrays an absurdly benign understanding of an Islam whose apparent only fault is being slandered by others.
“Across the Muslim world today,” Pintak’s introduction notes, “extremists are wielding their swords with grisly effect, but the pen…can be just as lethal.”
The 2012 “lewd cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad” in the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, for example, receive Pintak’s censure while, like many journalists today, he uncritically applies the honorific “Prophet” to Islam’s founder. Charlie Hebdo’s editor had condemned the weapons used in violent reactions to the anti-Muhammad “Innocence of Muslims” internet movie trailer preceding his cartoons. Yet the “weapon he controlled can do far more damage,” Pintak warned in equating speech with the violent reactions of others, then “evident in the conflagration…erupting across the Muslim world.”
“A commitment to press freedom is in my blood,” Pintak qualified against suspicions of censorship. Yet speaking of the 2005 Danish Muhammad cartoons and their violent response, Pintak showed sympathy for those who refused their publication.“[M]any Muslim journalists,” Pintak related in denying these “Motoons” any news value, “simply couldn’t understand why Western news organizations would republish the offensive images just because” of a legal right. Yet “journalism is not supposed to be a weapon” but rather “to inform, not inflame; to understand, not distort,” in contrast to “propaganda.”
The Danish cartoons exhibited “in our increasingly interconnected world,” writer Jonathan Lyons similarly relativized, “a number of central issues.” These included the “proper extent of press freedoms; minority rights; the shifting landscape of blasphemy laws and prohibitions; and the history of Muslim grievance toward the West.”
Rather than criticize Muslim rioters, Lyons complained that “almost no one reported on…the Danish media and its supporters as cynical provocateurs motivated by domestic political concerns.”
Beyond free speech controversies, “Islam for Journalists” favored Islam with numerous biased and false statements.
After discussing how Islam “roughly translates as ‘surrender’ or ‘submission’…to the will of Allah,” Pintak noted that Muhammad in Islam, “although he is not divine, he is considered ‘the Perfect Man.’”
“By imitating him,” Pintak stated without any critical questioning of Muhammad’s example, “Muslims hope to acquire his interior attitude—perfect surrender to God.” Pintak also takes an uncritical approach towards Muhammad’s migration or hijara to Yathrib (Medina) in order to escape his pagan opponents in Mecca.
“Muslims interpret Muhammad’s decision to embark on this exodus as a teaching that they should not live under tyranny,” Pintak proclaims, omitting any controversial discussion of the Islamic law Muhammad developed.
Western “notions of Islam,” meanwhile, Lyons dismisses without explanation. These include “irrational; spread by the sword and maintained by force; and sexually perverse and abusive toward women” as well as “unsuited to democratic institutions, science, and modernity.” Such views “had their origins as wartime propaganda, dating to beginning of the Crusades,” Lyons asserts, ignoring Western hostility towards Islam originating in centuries of pre-Crusades Islamic aggression.
“Innocence of Muslims” “drew on Crusades-era propaganda to slander the Prophet Muhammad,” Lyons further claims, even though canonical Islamic accounts underlie this poorly-made film.
In all, the “West had had no direct experience or knowledge of Muslim beliefs, practices, and lifestyles at the time that it established its comprehensive vision of Islam as a deadly, existential, and essentially immutable threat.”
Apparently for Lyons, ongoing Muslim invasion and subjugation of Christian societies dating from Islam’s beginning is not direct enough….
In the West, meanwhile, the real threat is apparently an often “lucrative…anti-Islam movement” whose “goal is to prohibit the free exercise of Islam,” journalist Bob Smietana warns….
richard Sherman says
“THE PERFECT MAN” PERSONALLY DECAPITATED 900 UNARMED JEWS…He is the perfect sociopath…a worthless mass murderer…like Eichmann and Heydrich
Champ says
Right, Richard! …the so-called “perfect man” was a perverted pedophile; among other horrors, too!
Charli Main says
Are the hundreds of millions of Muslims that believe in the rabid rantings in the Koran, Hadiths and Suras any better???
The” Evil Koran” is just an inanimate book. Its the Muslims that follow, believe in and practice its teachings that keep it alive and well.
Jay Boo says
That sounds like a version of the old song “all Muslims are exactly the same” (AKA subhuman) meme.
voegelinian says
Nonsense, Jay Boo. Your asymptotic spasm of PC MC I find deeply offensive and dismaying — given the mountain of data about Muslims upon which you sit here, called Mt. Jihad Watch. Charli Main is eminently correct; he or she is reasonably inferring from the innumerable data and dots spewed daily by this volcano of evil lava called Mt. Jihad Watch, which simply reports and relays the outrageous atrocities perpetrated by Muslims all over the world.
Jay Boo says
@voegelinian
Nonsense, Jay Boo. Your asymptotic spasm of PC MC
Calling me PC MC
That is funny
Come on you know better than to use such a ploy.
Jay Boo says
@ Charli Main
It is more effective to attack & mock the dishonest ‘foundation’ and behavior built on the
(“rabid rantings in the Koran, Hadiths and Suras”)
than to attack Muslims as a group.
That kind of attack only draws Muslims closer to Islam.
It also enables Islamists to play the victim.
It is counterproductive.
Jay Boo says
I enjoy mocking “Muzzies” as much as anyone, but I do not wish to claim that all (Muslims are all bad and non-Muslims are all good) That inevitably leads to supremacist thinking of the Rush Limbaugh school of thought (US versus THEM) blabber ideology.
If we are to claim that Islam is supremacist then we should try not to be like Islamists or else we become hypocrites.
Charli Main says
@Jay Boo
that’s an outrageous and offensive inference.
I have never suggested or implied that Muslims are “sub- human”.
But all Muslims that believe in and follow the Koran, Hadiths and Suras ARE THE SAME . That’s why they are Muslims.
The implied inferences that not all Muslims are evil because they are “only token or moderate Muslims” is PC MC bullshit.
You are either a Muslim or not a Muslim.
Jay Boo says
Islam is vulnerable now
Even some of the commenters on NPR have been taking a few pokes.
Islam is not as strong as people think (its filth is leaking out in spite of efforts to suppress the truth).
The leftist enablers are not as unified now.
Jay Boo says
@Charli Main
[The implied inferences that not all Muslims are evil because they are “only token or moderate Muslims” is PC MC bullshit.]
Are you stating that all Muslims are evil ?
Yes or No
Charli Main says
Yes.
All Muslims that practice, follow and believe in the teaching of Mohammed as laid out in the Koran, Hadiths and Suras are inherently evil because they are disciples of an evil philosophy
The Muslims that don´t adhere to the ranting and ravings of Mohammed of Islam ARE NOT TRUE MUSLIMS and are thus NOT Evil.
This “good Muslim” bad Muslim” mantra is PC MC nonsense
voegelinian says
“Calling me PC MC
That is funny
Come on you know better than to use such a ploy.”
I didn’t call you PC MC; I said you exhibited an asymptotic spasm of PC MC.
My term “asymptotic” I developed because a new phenomenon came to my notice that needed describing — the strange phenomenon of people who aren’t normally PC MC, even about Islam, suddenly exhibiting various tics, spasms, reflexes, signs, and symptoms that make sense only if derived from the influence of PC MC.
The reason why this happens as much as it does only testifies to the remarkable psychological and cultural influence of PC MC: it insinuates its values deep into the psychological viscera of a person; and one of the reasons it is able to do this is because it comes “bundled” along with genuinely good values & virtues that are part of the heritage of the Judaeo-Christian/Graeco-Roman West.
However, there is a parallel phenomenon that closely resembles the asymptotic spasm that may be derived from another source: the dhimmitude reflex of those who have an ancestry deriving from various parts of the Muslim orbit (and/or the hangover from a Muslim past in one’s family). This can lead to similar reflexive spasm, such as the anxious worry not to target all those minions of decent Muslims with whom one, apparently, semi-consciously identifies in one way or another.
Peter Buckley says
Watch 3 of the UK’s leading muslim “spokesmen” tying themselves up in knots over the “Jesus and Mo” T-shirts. In Nawaz’s report at the start there is an interview with a gay muslim, who claims there are probably thousands like him. You will also find in the report the admission by Nawaz that the number of apostates in the “muslim community” is probably much higher than generally thought:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb1LR6887cc
For another debate on homosexuality in the “muslim community”, watch this( 5 minutes in):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJI7D5hU-mU
I particularly enjoyed listening to what looked like a young convert shouting:” You can’t be a muslim and gay. The Quran says…”
As I keep saying, Islam is collapsing before our eyes as it fails to come to terms with the modern world. The first pre-requisite for Islam to triumph is a “UNITED UMMAH”. Today, it is in pieces.Hilarious……
CogitoErgoSum says
In the West…indeed in the whole world….the REAL THREAT is ignorance of the real goal of Islam….which is to prohibit the free exercise of any religion other than Islam. It’s as simple as that…….really.
jewdog says
“Islam for Dhimmis” is what this mangy sheet should be called. This Larry Putztak seems to have touched on all the cringing clichés demanded by the Islamofascist thugs at CAIR. Maybe he’s angling for a job as a Qatari press-agent.
Hey Larry, why don’t you put out some toilet paper for the Nazi Party?
mortimer says
Lutztak is a sell-out to the Mozzies.
Mozzies are supremacists who want claim the right NEVER TO BE OFFENDED.
Freedom of expression means they have NO SUCH RIGHT.
Everyone may be offended EQUALLY in a free and EQUAL system.
Mozzies are not entitled to special treatment.
jewdog says
Some Muslims are entitled to special treatment, especially the ones with MB ties: They should be handed a one-way ticket to Damascus, cargo class.
Jay Boo says
“Islam for Dummies” is a book in the (for Dummies series) at Amazon.com
It is surprising that the title has not been banned, just in case some Muslims might misinterpret it as a double entendre against Islam’s stupidity.
The title that you listed “Islam for Dhimmis” would work as a replacement.
Wellington says
The Pintaks and Lyons of the world are hypocrites, cowards and definitely a threat to liberty. Here’s why: These two people would NEVER have registered a complaint if Jesus has been parodied (except, of course, to the extent he is considered by Muslims a Muslim prophet).
These toadies, these fools, will cave to Muslim intolerance, contra any Christian intolerance out there (which is minimal, if non-existent), because of three reasons: 1) PC/MC which says that all cultures are equal with the implicit exception of Western culture, which can be excoriated ad nauseam; 2) they are afraid; 3) it’s so “cool” to be with the “in” crowd which just knows that the worst, the most repressive, culture in history is Western Civilization (never mind that the West pioneered rights no other civilization did, that it has apologized for its wrongdoings far more than any other civilization has, and that is right now being taken huge advantage of by the Islamic world which, in typical full parasitic mode, will use the freedoms the West developed to destroy those freedoms if only it can).
Oh yeah, the Pintaks and Lyons are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Easily. They are in their own way enemies of freedom, not that they will ever acknowledge this or even comprehend such. They are very limited human beings, only the extent of their harm remaining something not yet determined. They themselves, in their own way, are actually parasites of Western Civilization. This should be their epitaph should truth win out in the end, which I think it will being the cautious and skeptical optimist that I am.
Kepha says
Professional journalists and publicists are the last people to whom I’d entrust the protection of freedom of speech and the press–even though I’ve dabbled in those professions myself. Let’s not forget that journalism, from its inception in the pamphlet battles of Elizabethan England between Puritans and Anglicans on down to the present has been a very political enterprise. it cheers and fights mightily for its clients; but when some professional scribbler loftily announces that he disagrees with what you say but will fight to the death for your right to say it, you’d better count the silver twice.
Stop and think: how many writers imprisoned and persecuted by the Communists have the PEN clubs ever defended, prior to outside shaming forcing them to speak?
20th century totalitarianism in its Fascist, National Socialist, and Communist forms was always a movement of word workers, yet all of these movements were brutal to anyone who wished to speak or write independently.
Pintak is one more hungry scribbler who found a CAIR- or other Islamic connection useful. Hence, he will happily savage Basiley Nakhoula (who is not an admirable human being) over a film clip, but he will ignore what his own clients are doing to anyone who dissents from their view. And I’m sure Pintak turns a very blind eye to what has happened to his own Mizrahi coreligionists (if he retains any Jewish devotion at all).
Hence, in some ways, the dhimmification of American journalism doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Papa Whiskey says
This is yet another example of American journalism’s craven capitulation to Islamic supremacy. At the time of the “Cartoon Jihad” uproar, only three major American papers had the integrity to push back against Islamic demands by printing any of them. All the rest demurred, justifying their submission with weasel words. A handful of journalists actually had the testicularity to resign in protest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/international/americas/09observer.ready.html
I also did so, leaving the East Valley Tribune of Mesa, Ariz. after my putative superiors refused to print any of the cartoons along with an oped piece I’d written on the controversy. Regarding their decision, I wrote that they “had set a dreadful precedent, one certain to haunt us all in the years ahead.” Would that I had not been so prescient.
gravenimage says
Papa Whiskey wrote:
I also did so, leaving the East Valley Tribune of Mesa, Ariz. after my putative superiors refused to print any of the cartoons along with an oped piece I’d written on the controversy. Regarding their decision, I wrote that they “had set a dreadful precedent, one certain to haunt us all in the years ahead.” Would that I had not been so prescient.
……………………………….
I know you’ve mentioned this before—Kudos to you for being so principled, Papa Whiskey.
Have you found a new home in journalism, or have you had to leave the field? I fervently hope it’s the former—we need your voice.
Besides the three publications you cite, the only other one that bears mentioning is the Boston Phoenix.
They decided not to publish the MoToons, but at least dared to say *why*—because they knew it would be dangerous.
In any other world, this would serve as an example of cringing dhimmitude—but in the mad world we currently live in, I can at least respect them for being honest and not serving up a pack of lies where they pretend their cowardice is something “high-minded”.
gravenimage says
“Islam for Journalists”: Journalists for Sharia censorship
“A commitment to press freedom is in my blood,” Lawrence Pintak insists in Islam for Journalists, which has been heartily endorsed by Hamas-linked CAIR.
……………………………..
Apparently that “commitment to press freedom” doesn’t run very deep in his blood—more a trace element that he take or leave…
And no wonder CAIR is “heartily endorsing” this cringing *self-censorship*. Why go to all the trouble of threatening the foolish Kuffar to shut them up, when all too many of them are happy to do it themselves? *Sickening*.
More:
Then he proceeds to qualify his commitment to press freedom right out of existence. Referring to the Muhammad cartoons and the Muslim riots that followed them, he says that “many Muslim journalists simply couldn’t understand why Western news organizations would republish the offensive images just because” of a legal right, for “journalism is not supposed to be a weapon”; it is meant “to inform, not inflame.”
……………………………..
*Good God*. Not only is this news in and of itself, but the very purpose of the MoToons was to point out—and protest—Islamic bans on freedom of speech. How can any who calls himself a journalist *have missed this*?
This will just embolden pious Muslims further—it is not just any depiction of the “Prophet” they seek to ban, but *any* criticism of Islam, Shari’ah, and “blasphemy” laws.
Does this tool want to end up with the kind of “freedom of the press” that exists in Dar-al-Islam? It certainly seems so, because that is where this will lead if we let it…
And just look at that reference to “inflaming” Muslims. Who here *hasn’t* read an article or editorial that hasn’t p*ssed him off? No one has a right to read the news with a guarantee that he will not be offended by its content.
Moreover, look at the form that “inflammation” takes—if a civilized person is “inflamed” by a piece of writing, he may fire off a pithy letter to the editor, or if especially incensed may cancel his subscription to the publication in question. The most extreme response this is likely to engender—and even this is quite rare—is annoyed people picketing the publication’s offices.
But with pious Muslims? Expect death threats, violent riots, and possible assaults and even murder.
Is Pintak apt to create further books in the series such as “Christianity for Journalists”, “Judaism for Journalists”, “Hinduism for Journalists”, “Mormonism for Journalists”, “Buddhism for “Journalists”, etc? I would be shocked if he did. Islam is a protected case, in a category of its own, it would seem.
And it’s not just religion—I don’t imagine we will see *any* similar pamphlets, even regarding the most “politically correct” groups.
More:
“Across the Muslim world today,” Pintak’s introduction notes, “extremists are wielding their swords with grisly effect, but the pen…can be just as lethal.”
……………………………..
*Really*? Even if one believed in “Islamophobia”, this would be a *grotesque* thing to say.
Only in the weltanshauung of a pious Muslim or the most cringing dhimmi tool is being exposed to something like cartoons of Muhammed the same as dying in a Jihad terror attack. What *repulsive* false moral equivalence.
More:
The 2012 “lewd cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad” in the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, for example, receive Pintak’s censure while, like many journalists today, he uncritically applies the honorific “Prophet” to Islam’s founder. Charlie Hebdo’s editor had condemned the weapons used in violent reactions to the anti-Muhammad “Innocence of Muslims” internet movie trailer preceding his cartoons. Yet the “weapon he controlled can do far more damage,” Pintak warned in equating speech with the violent reactions of others, then “evident in the conflagration…erupting across the Muslim world.”
……………………………..
*Madness*—but not uncommon—those who equate daring to speak out against violence with violence itself. *Ugh*.
More:
The Danish cartoons exhibited “in our increasingly interconnected world,” writer Jonathan Lyons similarly relativized, “a number of central issues.” These included the “proper extent of press freedoms; minority rights; the shifting landscape of blasphemy laws and prohibitions; and the history of Muslim grievance toward the West.”
……………………………..
Is Pintak *calling for* “blasphemy laws” and journalistic prohibitions here in the free West? It certainly seems that way…
More:
Rather than criticize Muslim rioters, Lyons complained that “almost no one reported on…the Danish media and its supporters as cynical provocateurs motivated by domestic political concerns.”
……………………………..
Grotesque—he’s throwing the brave and stalwart creators of the MoToons under the bus, while excusing those who would threaten or murder them.
Who is going to defend Pintak’s rights as a journalist when all the others have been silenced or slaughtered? No response…
More:
In all, the “West had had no direct experience or knowledge of Muslim beliefs, practices, and lifestyles at the time that it established its comprehensive vision of Islam as a deadly, existential, and essentially immutable threat.”
……………………………..
Except for being invaded, pirated, enslaved, forcibly converted, and slaughtered outright.
And then, the Qur’an was first translated into a Western language almost *nine hundred years ago*. Seems like we might know a bit more about Islam’s threat than Pintak would have his readers believe…
More:
In the West, meanwhile, the real threat is apparently an often “lucrative…anti-Islam movement” whose “goal is to prohibit the free exercise of Islam,” journalist Bob Smietana warns….
……………………………..
Does it matter that the full “free exercise of Islam” is not prayer and fasting, but imposing Shari’ah law and oppressing and brutalizing the Infidel? Of course not…
jihad3tracker says
Thank you, gravenimage, for this superb comprehensive posting… BTW, what vitamins do you take for typing stamina ???
For those here who are curious about Pintak’s journalists & Islam course, here is a hotlink to it: http://www.newsu.org/courses/covering-islam
gravenimage says
Thanks for the link, jihad3tracker, and for your kind words—and for the laugh about the “vitamins”!.
Bradamante says
I have a new baloney detector to apply to this kind of thing, and sure enough, I found grade-A baloney: The authors gullibly repeat the thing about the “greater jihad” being non-violent spirituality and the “lesser jihad” being warfare, claiming it comes from the Qur’an (no verse cited, of course), when in fact it’s a hadith — a traditional story about Muhammad — and it’s classified by Muslims themselves as a “weak hadith,” a category that means there is little reason to believe it’s true and it is not allowed to be cited as precedent in deciding sharia. Amazing how learning a few solid facts makes it easier to see when someone is giving you a snow job.
mortimer says
A HECKLER’S VETO occurs when an acting party’s right to freedom of speech is curtailed or restricted in order to prevent a reacting party’s extreme or VIOLENT behavior. The common example is that of threatening demonstrators causing a speech to be terminated in order to preserve the peace.
The term was coined by University of Chicago professor of law Harry Kalven.
mortimer says
“Islam for Journalists, which has been heartily endorsed (PAID FOR) by Hamas-linked CAIR”
… you, sir, are a sellout.
Jan says
This disgusting dhimmi tool has a blog, pintak.com, if anyone feels like telling this cowardly wanker what a journalist is *supposed* to be.
But you can’t shame a pig wallowing in muck; or should that be wallowing in a nice fat backhander from CAIR ?
jihad3tracker says
Herewith is sent a huge THX, Jan, for the lead about Pintak’s blog…
AND — PARDON THE CAPITAL LETTERS — BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT — Pintak has apparently associated himself with Edward R. Murrow, a brilliant incisive mind, and courageous reporter who covered WWII extensively from the combat front.
For all those here at JW who are unaware of Murrow — because his career spanned many years ago — please web search to learn how fiercely devoted he was to the fight against surrender to bullies and thugs.
He stood up to senator Joe McCarthy (an alcoholic smear-monger) when McCarthy had everyone scared to death of his threats.
If Murrow were alive today he would be thoroughly disgusted with Pintak’s hypocrisy, essentially the blind cultural relativism of a coward, enabling totalitarians & fascists using the hecklers veto.
As Bob Spencer and Andrew Harrod write, someone who is really not interested in journalists resisting intimidation to get the truth out.
He is the perfect exemplar of naïve willing cluelessness… pleading for rescue when imams at Friday prayers flip the switches from “Off” to “On” that all American Muslims have on their shoulders, and a scimitar is about to come down on his neck.
Whaddya think — should we rush to defend this guy ???
voegelinian says
“He stood up to senator Joe McCarthy (an alcoholic smear-monger) when McCarthy had everyone scared to death of his threats.”
Utter bullcrap. You’re just mindlessly parroting and regurgitating memes and shibboleths from the PC MC culture. Read M. Stanton Evans on how McCarthy not only was correct about Communist infiltration — but he actually underestimated just how deeply and broadly that infiltration was. Diana West also has copious and meticulously referenced information on this, most notably in her recent book American Betrayal (as well as her Rebuttal to idiots in and on the fringes of the Counter-Jihad who should know better).
Bullcrap as purveyed by jihadtracker above is symptomatic of precisely the reason why the West remains unconscionably myopic to the dangers of Muslims following their Islam.
tgbrowning says
(Sigh)
You want to know about Morrow?
Read Berlin Diaries by Shirer. Or Twentieth Century Journey by him. Stop frothing at the mouth about communism and look at the ENTIRE life and work.
What we need now is far less vehemence and condemnation and more cooperation and clear thinking. Islam is DANGEROUS. Screaming insults does NOT win converts.
thomas_h says
“McCarthy not only was correct about Communist infiltration — but he actually underestimated just how deeply and broadly that infiltration was.”
Absolutely!
This has been established beyond any doubt.
gravenimage says
Here’s more effluvia from these “journalists”:
From Lawrence Pintak:
“Reflections in a Bloodshot Lens: America, Islam, and the War of Ideas”
http://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Bloodshot-Lens-America-Islam/dp/0745324193
This book includes more calls for self-censorship. From a review:
“…It examines the disconnect that leads Americans and Muslims to view the same words and images in fundamentally different ways. Partly a result of a centuries-old ‘us’ against ‘them’ dichotomy, the problem is exacerbated by an increasingly polarised media and by leaders on both sides who either don’t understand or don’t care what impact their words and policies have in the world at large.”
In other words, things would be fine if only we would stop pointing out how terribly violent Islam is…sarc/off
Here’s a similar waste of good paper from Jonathan Lyons:
“Islam Through Western Eyes: From the Crusades to the War on Terrorism”
http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Through-Western-Eyes-Terrorism/dp/0231158947
“Despite the West’s growing involvement in Muslim societies, conflicts, and cultures, its inability to understand or analyze the Islamic world threatens any prospect for East–West rapprochement. Impelled by one thousand years of anti-Muslim ideas and images, the West has failed to engage in any meaningful or productive way with the world of Islam…”
Unlike Islam itself, of course. All of that invading, piracy, enslaving, kidnapping, taking of ransom and tribute, and outright slaughter has been so very “productive”…sarc/off
By the way, he considers *CNN* to be “anti-Islamic”, which gives you an idea of where this tool is coming from…
And finally, from Bob Smietana, who doesn’t appear to have had a book in him, so far:
“Anti-Muslim crusaders make millions spreading fear”
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20101024/NEWS01/10240374/Anti-Muslim-crusaders-make-millions-spreading-fear
One of the people he slams for daring to point out the threat of Jihad and Shari’ah is, of course, Robert Spencer.
He also lies outright and says that all American supporters of Israel believe she plans to expand and expel all Muslims from Iran and Iraq. He also claims that this is a tenet of Christianity that precedes the Second Coming.
I have never heard *anyone* claim this—not any Israeli, and not any Christian.
Still, he implies that the *only* thing standing in the way of Muslim/Christian friendship is Christian bigotry. Apparently that whole thing where Muslims all over the world are slaughtering Christians is not a factor…sarc/off
thomas_h says
Graven:
“Still, he implies that the *only* thing standing in the way of Muslim/Christian friendship is Christian bigotry.”
One wonders if Christian bigotry is also the *only* thing standing in the way of Muslim/Jewish-Buddhist-Hindu friendship, or are the Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu bigotry also involved.
“And finally, from Bob Smietana, who doesn’t appear to have had a book in him, so far:
“Anti-Muslim crusaders make millions spreading fear”.
How immoral considering that the murder-spreading Muslims are doing it for free.
gravenimage says
Thomas H wrote:
“Still, he implies that the *only* thing standing in the way of Muslim/Christian friendship is Christian bigotry.”
One wonders if Christian bigotry is also the *only* thing standing in the way of Muslim/Jewish-Buddhist-Hindu friendship, or are the Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu bigotry also involved.
………………………………
Good point, Thomas. Dhimmi tools who natter on about Islam being “misunderstood” by the “bigoted” West are either ignorant of or ignore the Jihad against non-Western Dar-al-Harb—in western China, and Burma, and Thailand, and the Philippines, and India, and Russia, and sub-Saharan Africa, and against dhimmi populations in Iraq, and Syria, and Sudan, and northern Nigeria, and every other damn place in the world.
More:
“And finally, from Bob Smietana, who doesn’t appear to have had a book in him, so far:
“Anti-Muslim crusaders make millions spreading fear”.
How immoral considering that the murder-spreading Muslims are doing it for free.
………………………………
Yes—I’m thoroughly tired of this—as though Pintak and Lyons and Smietana himself were not making money off their *apologia for evil*—and as though intelligent people like Robert Spencer and Pam Geller couldn’t find ways to make a living that don’t involve constant death threats from violent Muslims.
It is just a cheap shot—as well as a false one. Who would open themselves up to these kinds of threats and abuse if they *didn’t* believe that we were worth saving from Islam?
No Fear says
I will stop criticising Islam when Islam stops blaming the Jews for all their life problems.
I will stop criticising Islam when Islam stops baying for the blood of all Israelis.
I will stop criticising Islam when Islam stops whinging and gets off it’s arse and CREATES something useful instead of destroying things.
TG Browning says
Robert,
This needs to be countered by a lengthy analysis. Scanning through the document, it appears to be extremely reasonable with the shading of truth hard to point out. For example, there are several comparisons to “moderate” Muslim country like, ahem, Egypt, where a woman is not treated specifically under current law like chattel. The fact that Egypt is in a state of flux right now and that the Muslim Brotherhood was clearly moving that way is not mentioned. Nor is it mentioned that the laws are one things, common treatment and coercion something else again.
Who’s up for a page by page analysis and refutation. I don’t have the knowledge to do a good job but somebody needs to do it. The fact is that the Edward R. Murrow College has a great deal of prestige in journalism and can influence far more students than one might wish.
Browning>>>
Bradamante says
I think page by page analysis is a very good idea. I felt empowered by simply being able to identify the gullible repetition of the “greater/lesser jihad” myth as a sure sign of a whitewash. I would like to dig in deeper and check facts and sources to really tear this thing apart. If others here feel the same way, we could make it a group project. (Robert Spencer might have refutations at his fingertips that would take relative beginners like me a lot more time to come up with, but this thing is so long, it hardly seems reasonable to expect him to do the whole job — and we could learn a lot by tackling it ourselves.)
voegelinian says
That particular meme, the Greater/Lesser Jihad, is only one of literally dozens of different memes that unfortunately obfuscate the problem of Islam (exploited with clever diligence by Muslim Islamopologists, and with sincerely starry-eyed asininity by their Useful Idiots, the non-Muslim Islamopologists).
The work it would take just to do what you suggest would require many hours as well as a talent (if not an expertise) in research. Ideally, one would enlist actual experts who not only know Arabic, but who also have their hands on secondary sources and primary sources not easily (if at all) available to the general public online. Even without this ideal, just clarifying the one meme of the Greater/Lesser Jihad would be a time-consuming and laborious project. It is a project that desperately needs to be done, however. And then multiply that by the dozens of other memes that need to be clarified for our efforts in the “battle space of the war of ideas” (as Frank Gaffney has so aptly put it).
The Counter-Jihad continues to be flying by the seat of its pants while Muslims are metastasizing in their mass-murderous world war against us and plotting horrific plots against us that will make 911 look like a firecracker display on 7/4. The Counter-Jihad needs an Anti-Islam Manual (that is also an Anti-PCMC Manual which would anticipate the usual tiresome but unfortunately mainstream and effective litany of objections against Islamocriticism).
This Manual should be digitalized, uploadable as an app for every computer and phone, in addition to hard copy printouts.
This Manual needs to become the definitive resource for all of us who are on the front lines of the currently most important part of this world war — persuading our fellow Westerners to wake up. The front lines can be the laundromat, the family dinner, a cocktail party, a chat with a friend on a short walk from the car to the shopping mall, an interlude of small talk with your mechanic while the spring birds twitter in a nearby tree, a moment during a church meeting or a town meeting; and so forth.
In order for this to really gain traction and snowball in the best and relatively quickest way, we need our illustrious quasi-Leaders of the Counter-Jihad to reorient their priorities away from their book sales to putting the creation and implementation of a Manual on their front burner for the next decade: a Ten-Year Plan to get this out, putting their money, influence and networking ability to use to get the best team together. Will they?
Bradamante says
That’s an interesting question you raise. I completely agree that we need some kind of manual or resource so that we can spout facts quickly and accurately, even if most of us don’t have the time or inclination to develop the level of expertise of a Robert Spencer. But I don’t think checking and debunking some specific claims in a journalism manual like this one — enough to make a dent in its credibility, anyway — necessarily takes that much time, though I could be wrong. I learned about the fact that “greater/lesser jihad” is based on a weak hadith just a couple of days ago — the same day I learned that a hadith is a story about Muhammad or his Companions or Successors, and a “weak” (da’if) hadith is one that has a very questionable chain of transmission, such that it is not accepted as valid or normative in determining sharia. Once I understood that much, I felt like I knew the ground I was standing on. There’s a good page about this particular hadith here:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Lesser_vs_Greater_Jihad
Bill Warner’s books also provide good information to train us to argue. But I do know what you mean — somehow, we need to load enough information into our heads, and keep it straight, so that when someone comes back with “But don’t you know that Sheikh Nobody-ever-heard-of-him said blah-blah (a hadith that no one in Islam takes seriously) and that the Peace and Love school of sharia (which only about 10 people subscribe to, and there are fatwas out against all of them) ruled on the basis of this that everything is unicorns and rainbows” — we know how to push back with accurate information about what’s widely accepted as normative. It’s tough, for sure. I know exactly what you mean about what we’re up against — it’s like a hydra that produces 9 new pieces of BS every time you push back on one, and it’s all so alien to us that it’s hard to even know where to start.
I think starting with resources like Wikiislam, Robert Spencer’s books, and Bill Warner’s books may be good. But maybe we do need things organized into a training manual that lays out “Here are the parts you need to memorize and get straight in your mind so you understand the framework, and then you can check specific factoids as you go” or something. Bill Warner is trying to do some of that, for example by making clear the relationship between Qur’an, Sira and Hadith, and I found that helpful.
tgbrowning says
Got to be done. Anyone interested should contact me at tgbrowning@yahoo.com. I’m a writer myself so I’ll try to handled the editing and coordination. NO ONE WHO CANNOT FORGO AD HOMINIUM ATTACKS NEED APPLY. We need RESTRAINED analysis (see Warraq and Ibriham).
I’m thinking we need two people per article so nothing is missed.
Other suggestions?
voegelinian says
Bradamante,
First off, I think people who agree that we need some kind of Manual often haven’t thought things through and have no idea how complicated and difficult it can be. Before a group of people plunge into trying to create one, there needs to be a long discussion about how to do it.
Secondly, to illustrate what I mean, I’d respond to your statement —
“But I don’t think checking and debunking some specific claims in a journalism manual like this one — enough to make a dent in its credibility, anyway — necessarily takes that much time, though I could be wrong.”
— by noting that simply stating that the Greater Jihad is from a “weak hadith” at the very least
1) needs two to three credible sources to back it up
2) needs background information at the ready: what is a “hadith”, what is a “weak hadith”, how do you know that particular hadith is “weak”, what do clerics today say about this particular hadith; how important are hadiths, which hadiths are more authoritative and why — with each one of these requiring the same kind of credible sources (as well as a ready accessibility to directly related talking points we need at our fingertips — e.g., how “jihad” is mostly a military supremacist activity in Islam not a peaceful “inner struggle” (or peaceful “social activism”)
and
3) needs to anticipate further attempts at deflection (whether sincerely deluded, or cunning) from one’s interlocutor: those attempts likely would fall into two categories:
a) those that we should engage, as they are directly relevant to the primary point we are making;
b) those which are clearly attempts at distracting from the primary point (“What about the Crusades?” or “What about abortion clinic bombings?” etc.
(b) type deflections should be temporarily ignored after first identifying them as irrelevant, while we redirect the discussion back to the primary point — with the promise that we will get to those unrelated points at a different time, after we have finished this one point.
(b) in turn requires some basic training in logical fallacies in order to be optimally deployed.
Thirdly, closely related to my first two points, my observation has been that the Counter-Jihad (someday hopefully to become the Anti-Islam Movement) has for years been suffering not from not having enough data, but rather from TMI (Too Much Information) — and related to that, from information poorly organized, with often bewildering overlaps, redundancies, poorly sourced claims, etc. A well-crafted and well-organized Manual would be able to address these problems in the single most important area of the world war that is currently being waged against us — the war of ideas against our own people (a war that must remain civil, not a civil war), so that we can wake up our side from its pleasant nap, asleep to the fact that it is, indeed, at war but doesn’t yet know it.
gravenimage says
I think you might take a stab at creating such a manual yourself, Voegelinian.
I would certainly purchase it.
Jan says
Hi, Bradamante.
This is meant as a reply to your longer post to voegelinian, but for some reason there’s no reply button under that one.
The Citizenwarrior site has produced an excellent guide to islamic bs, of the type you’re talking about, and you can order it from them. I’d supply a link, but I’m using my tablet, and I can’t copy and paste on it.
Not only does it give lots of useful info, but also how to talk about islam to the non-islamosavvy without losing one’s temper, which I, for one, found extremely helpful !
Bradamante says
Do you mean the book Getting Through? I’ve got that and I love it, but I haven’t looked at it in a while — I need to look and see if it has the kinds of answers we’re talking about. Good idea.
Januk36 says
Why does the left crescent on the background roof top the US flag in the foreground ?
Michael Copeland says
The picture is a worm’s eye view, the worm being Pintak. The “flagpole” is one of those table decorations about 3 inches high.
Can’t have anything higher than the mosque, now, can we?
It is against the Pact of Omar.
Jay Boo says
[“Why does the left crescent on the background roof top the US flag in the foreground ?”]
=========
It could be done from the same spirit that placed the “C” for a CRESCENT first
and a “T” used to symbolize a CROSS as last
in the familiar COEXIST bumper sticker.
Michael Copeland says
“Fourteen centuries of mind numbing, cultural conditioning in a violent, intellect sapping, stultifying intolerant supremacist religious dogma has created the Muslim mindset of today.”
wileyvet
Extract of comment http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/enza-ferreri/taqiyya-and-blasphemy-law-in-the-uk/
Angemon says
““Fourteen centuries of mind numbing, cultural conditioning in a violent, intellect sapping, stultifying intolerant supremacist religious dogma has created the Muslim mindset of today.””
That, and the inbreeding.
BB says
And the fact that only defectives join it.
Angemon says
““[M]any Muslim journalists,” Pintak related in denying these “Motoons” any news value, “simply couldn’t understand why Western news organizations would republish the offensive images just because” of a legal right. Yet “journalism is not supposed to be a weapon” but rather “to inform, not inflame; to understand, not distort,” in contrast to “propaganda.””
[…]
“Rather than criticize Muslim rioters, Lyons complained that “almost no one reported on…the Danish media and its supporters as cynical provocateurs motivated by domestic political concerns.””
Oh, the Danish media are the ones to blame for the riots? Really?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/denmark-muslim-leader-who-stoked-muhammad-cartoon-rage-now-says-he-regrets-his-actions
Michael Copeland says
When disapproving of items, like cartoons, that “inflame” and “distort”, and thus are propaganda, the egregious Pintak did not mention that two of the cartoons were forged additions dishonestly added. The Islamic organisers of the commanded Slaves of Allah wanted to make sure their criminal rioters would be well enraged. Hypocrite.
English has some words, like boycott and quisling which are, in origin, surnames. Hmmmm.
duh_swami says
Dummy journalists think so hard on the subject of Islam, that their wiring gets hot, burns off the insulation and short circuits. When that happens, the dummy morphs into a dhimmi, or at least a useful idiot. If you don’t believe that, look what it did to Nathan Lean. Pintak is no Nathan lean but both of them think way to hard, way beyond their capacity to cope with all those heavy thoughts. And they are not alone, journalism is loaded with extreme thinkers.
But only a relatively few are thinking hard about Islam. These people are proof that thinking too hard is detrimental to your mental health.
mortimer says
Thou shalt not think non-PC thoughts. The goal is to destroy Western culture and replace it with cultural Marxism.
Sam says
Headline from FOX News today:
“Brandeis University withdraws planned honorary degree for Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali”
Ladies and Gentlemen, and all Americans. This is a blatant WAR against our freedom. None of us have any excuse for being complacent. Please fight, Donate to Robert and Pam, talk to your family and friends and everybody about Islam and liberal agenda. We are losing against Islam and bigger enemy “liberals”. No time to waste anymore. I am really pissed about these cowards in Universities.
tgbrowning says
Got to finally say it–I’m a bloody liberal. But that doesn’t mean I’m in favor of multiculturalism, political correctness, lying, muzzling fee speech, taxing the hell out of everybody or snooping into telephone calls, mail, email, private conversations, or gun control. I believe in integrity, ala George Orwell and Christopher Hitchens.
Keep those of us liberals in mind in the future. I’m far from alone.
Bradamante says
I’m that kind of a liberal too. I always thought liberalism meant valuing equal rights for everyone, caring for the environment, not getting into other people’s business or trying to control people, and giving a hand up to people who need it — not destroying Western Civilization, taxing people to death, having uncontrolled immigration and no borders, and rejecting every bit of our heritage as Westerners and as Americans. I think it may have been someone here who pointed out that what I’m describing is *classical* liberalism, which isn’t what a lot of liberals mean nowadays. These days, the ideas found in classical liberalism might be more easily found in some current versions of conservatism — not sure — but in any case there are a lot of us self-described “liberals” (probably most of us over the age of 40, I’d guess) who are disgusted by the current multi-culti, anti-civilization mess that passes for liberalism these days. I no longer know what to call myself, but at one time I thought I was a liberal.
Wellington says
You are correct, Bradamante, about liberalism not being what it used to be. Some two hundred years ago, liberalism really did stand for freedom, including a lot less government. As that classical liberal, Thomas Jefferson, observed, government is best which ordinarily governs least.
Sadly, shortly after the death of this great classical liberal (1826), socialistic ideas began to enter into the liberal paradigm. Louis Blanc’s silly stuff represented some of the beginnings here and Karl Marx a bit later took “liberalism” to extremes. In short, classical liberalism, which began to die in the 1840s, was replaced with modern liberalism, which has little in common with classical liberalism and is actually, more or less (sometimes more, sometimes less), a form of totalitarian control (though disguised as freedom enhancing, which it most certainly is not).
Ah, it’s a many-chaptered tale to be sure, but the long and the short of it is that modern liberalism has little to do with freedom and has much to do with control by a higher, elite authority, which is pretty much what classical liberalism rebelled against in the first place—–a true 180 if ever there were one. Modern conservatives (I mean true modern conservatives like Calvin Coolidge and William Buckley, Jr.) are actually the heirs of classical liberalism, though even many so-called conservatives today don’t realize this.
voegelinian says
The French Enlightenment devolving into an orgy of beheadings and a reign of terror in France that was the first modern totalitarianism, followed on its heels by the first megalomaniac expansionist dictator in modern history destabilizing Europe with his fanatical visions (Napoleon) was another sign that liberalism had some problems…
gravenimage says
You are not alone, tgbrowning. I’m a liberal in many ways myself—but not in the way the term is used now, which is *anything* but liberal most of the time.
By the way, Ayaan Hirsi Ali—an African feminist—is certainly a liberal, as well.
It is absurd—but very, very common these days—that *anyone* who dares to speak out about the hideous *illiberalism* of Islam is considered “right wing”—and this term is used as a pejorative.
That people who support women’s rights, gay rights, freedom of expression, and rights of the individual are deemed “right wing” shows just how absurd the verbiage has become.
richard Sherman says
Brandeis has established itself as a major DHIMMI university…Obviously the university’s president celebrates the sociopath MUHAMMAD who PERSONALLY decapitated 900 unarmed Jews…and every student there celebrates the Koran’ s declaration the JEWS are pigs and monkeys…and every female student there loves the idea of FGM since Hirsi Ali preaches against it
thomas_h says
@richard Sherman
“MUHAMMAD… PERSONALLY decapitated 900 unarmed Jews”
If by decapitation involves only raising the saber from its lowest to the highest position followed by sudden lowering of the sabre resulting in removal of the victim’s head then the whole process takes a few seconds only.
It is conceivable that if Mohamad had a very small number of Jews delivered by an automate exactly in front of him all perfectly aligned and completely motionless with their head at the optimal position he would be able to murder them at, say, five second per head pace. Of course, a few minutes of such activity would have lowered the speed of slaughter considerably. In real situation the victims had to be dragged and held motionless in front of the monster, who would then need to adjust his stance to every individual victim. The preparation for the blow would take much longer than the slashing itself.
But let’s say for argument’s sake that mohammed, additionally to his zoological sexual powers, was endowed with phenomenal physical strength allowing him to carry on his bloody orgy at the fantastic rate of one head per minute. But that is exactly 15 hours.
Somehow, regardless how much pleasure Muhammed derived from murdering people I very much doubt he would be able to keep on chopping heads for such a long time.
He undoubtedly joined the massacre and relished the exercise, but not after it started causing him physical discomfort. He was a murderous pig, not a murdering superman.
richard Sherman says
Your time calculations may be correct. I do not know. What I do know is that when antisemitism is foundational to your philosophy( whether you call it Islam or national socialism) you will be passionate about killing unarmed Jews. That is why MUHAMMAD, Eichmann, Heydrich, Mengele , etc all were able to slaughter so many UNARMED JEWS..Also it is why the Grand Mufti encouraged the Nazis to continue the slaughter of unarmed Jews..Koranic killers and Nazi killers are identical….Churchill understood this and that is why he stated that Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies is in a dog.
gravenimage says
Thomas, I’m not sure it’s important whether the logistics are practicable for Muhammed to have personally beheaded 900 unarmed Jews or not—it’s that Muslims like to brag about the “Prophet” butchering every male Jew of the defeated Banu Qurayza tribe.
That tells you a lot about Muslim values, about what they admire, and about how they are likely to conduct themselves—and as you know, *none* of that is likely to be good…
thomas_h says
is:
“If by decapitation involves…”
should be:
“If decapitation involves…”
thomas_h says
@richard Sherman
“What I do know is that when antisemitism is foundational to your philosophy…you will be passionate about killing unarmed Jews.”
True. But you don’t emphasize the truth by constantly pressing in an obviously fictitious detail. On the contrary. It makes you sound not serious.
richard Sherman says
The Koran states MUHAMMAD PERSONALLY DECAPITATED the unarmed men of the Banu Quarayza tribe in 627. The only real debate is about the number: 600, 700, 800, 900?..I personally believe the fact that Muhammad was a mass murderer of unarmed Jews is not mentioned enough…Muslims certainly do.not want it mentioned. Liberals including liberal Jews cover their ears…
richard Sherman says
I believe the narrative has to be changed. Right now we hear the BS that Islam is a religion of peace and MUHAMMAD is the perfect man..Stating and REPEATING what Koran says about MUHAMMAD as a mass murderer of unarmed Jews is a good way to begin to change the narrative..I would hope you agree.
Wellington says
voegelinian: Well, leave it to the French to screw things up, though this should not adversely reflect upon those who “did” liberty rather well, most especially the Founding Fathers of America and the many in 19th-century Britain like the Duke of Wellington (admittedly he gave into Catholic Emancipation with reluctance but he did give in nonetheless and did not lope off heads or try to become supreme forever a la Napoleon), Lord Grey, Peel, Disraeli and Gladstone—–Dickens as well who rather “pinned down” the true worth of the French Revolution in his “A Tale of Two Cities”—–.
Ah, what do those who “did” liberty well in the modern era have in common? Why, they were all part of the Anglo-Saxon world, which now, of course, can be subjected to ridicule more than just about any other “world” out there. Dispostive of our stupid and silly times I would argue.