• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Victory: Federal judge in AFDI ad case says “expert” can’t testify that “Islamic Jew-hatred” is false

Nov 26, 2014 11:30 am By Robert Spencer

afdi-islamic-jew-hatred1This would not have been the first time that the U.S. government accepted comforting falsehoods over the truth, but in this case the truth prevailed, thanks to the ace AFLC lawyers David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise. HELP US KEEP SPREADING THE TRUTH WITH THESE ADS: CONTRIBUTE HERE.

“Federal Judge: “Expert” Cannot Testify that ‘Islamic Jew-Hatred’ Is False,” AFLC, November 26, 2014:

Late yesterday, a federal judge in Philadelphia ruled that an “expert” hired by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) may not testify that an “Islamic Jew-Hatred” advertisement submitted by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) was false. The advertisement stated, in relevant part, “Islamic Jew-Hatred: It’s in the Quran” and referred to Haj Amin Al-Husseini as “the leader of the Muslim world.”

The judge rejected SEPTA’s argument that it could ban the advertisement based on SEPTA’s claim of falsity, holding that the First Amendment does not permit government officials to be the “arbiter’s of truth” regarding matters of public concern.

The ruling is part of a lawsuit filed by the American Freedom Law Center on behalf of AFDI, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer against SEPTA for refusing to display the Islamic Jew-Hatred advertisement, which appears in full below:

Pro-Israel Ad

SEPTA intended to present the testimony of Dr. Jamal J. Elias, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and “an eminent scholar of Islam and Muslim society” at a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction allegedly to establish the falsity of the advertisement. Dr. Elias intended to offer two opinions, both of which pertain to alleged inaccuracies in the AFDI ad. First, Dr. Elias intended to testify that referring to Haj Amin al-Husseini as the “leader of the Muslim word” is “manifestly false.” And second, Dr. Elias intended to opine that the statement “the Quar’an teaches Jew-Hatred” is “unfair and erroneous.”

In his ruling rejecting SEPTA’s claim of “falsity,” the judge reviewed relevant First Amendment precedent, observing that

“speech concerning public issues has always rested on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values. . . . As such, if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion. Therefore, the protection afforded to political speech does not turn on the truth or popularity of the sentiments expressed.”

The judge further noted:

“Long standing Supreme Court precedent instructs that political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because the listener believes that it is false or disagrees with the message it advances. Allowing the state to restrict political speech based on an assessment that it is false or inaccurate, offends bedrock First Amendment principles.”

The judge concluded:

“In light of the precedent discussed above, I find that First Amendment principles apply to the advertisement at issue regardless of its alleged falsity. Consequently, Dr. Elias’ conclusions regarding the advertisement’s veracity are not relevant and will be excluded from the preliminary injunction hearing.”

Robert J. Muise, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, praised the ruling as a clear victory for the First Amendment and noted that

“it would be perilous to permit government censors to be the arbiters of truth regarding politics, history, religion, or other similar matters of opinion.”

David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, added:

“We are encouraged by the judge’s ruling, which was loyal to the First Amendment and tracked our motion on every point. It is important to have a judge who understands the importance of this constitutional guarantee, particularly when, as in this case, the freedom of speech is pitted against political correctness.”

AFLC expects that the court will hold a hearing on its motion for a preliminary injunction within the coming weeks.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: American Freedom Defense Initiative, free speech Tagged With: featured


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. duh_swami says

    Nov 26, 2014 at 11:52 am

    Free speech wins again…It’s probably not a good idea to use the Quran as a defense witness. Mufti the leader…just change ‘the’ to ‘a’ and the problem is solved.

    • mortimer says

      Nov 26, 2014 at 1:02 pm

      This was a very learned judge. His reasonings are inspiring and clear. The true intention of the First Amendment is to allow everyone to follow their own conscience in the matter of religion and have the right to express it without fear.

      • Kathy Brown, Esq. says

        Nov 26, 2014 at 7:05 pm

        You are so right Sir.

        This is key to our precious First Amendment: ‘Experts’ -governmental or not, don’t get to decide which speech is ‘true’ or ‘false’. Esp. our Muslim pals, to whom any truth about Islam, is always considered false.

        Taqqiya, doncha know!

    • ECAW says

      Nov 26, 2014 at 1:21 pm

      “Mufti the leader…just change ‘the’ to ‘a’ and the problem is solved.”

      That’s a pretty big change to the meaning of the sentence isn’t it? He wasn’t the leader of tha Muslim world (or am I wrong about that?). How did it ever get into the advert I wonder.

      • duh_swami says

        Nov 27, 2014 at 5:39 am

        That’s a pretty big change to the meaning of the sentence isn’t it?

        Yep…that’s the idea…

    • Huck Folder says

      Nov 27, 2014 at 1:54 am

      It could have been interesting. It could last years with claim and counterclaim.
      Maybe the judge knew that, then produced precedents to refute it.

      In a way, a lost opportunity. One day, I hope, the Book of Hate will go on trial,
      in a western court, with western jurisprudence, in spite of the smart Alexes and
      Christy’s of this world. No islam – we could be doing something useful now.

      I’m a little surprised that Pamela has to fight this battle again, if she wins can she
      get costs against SEPTA? It would only be fair.

  2. jihad3tracker says

    Nov 26, 2014 at 11:58 am

    Straight-line logical thinking about the First Amendment . . . Astonishing development !

    What is next — nobody believing CAIR’s cr*p about ” Islamophobia ” ? That is happening already . . .

  3. Twostellas says

    Nov 26, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    And second, Dr. Elias intended to opine that the statement “the Quar’an teaches Jew-Hatred” is “unfair and erroneous.”

    But true!

    • ECAW says

      Nov 26, 2014 at 3:03 pm

      The most detailed attempt I have seen to refute the claim that Jew hatred is rooted in the Koran comes from the moderates’ moderate Salim Mansur:

      http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4364/arab-muslim-antisemitism

      His argument seemed to me to rest on several dubious or clearly misleading claims, so clear in fact that it made me wonder whether he was kidding me or himself. As usual I find that it is the apologists’ attempts to exonerate Islam which are actually most damning. These are a couple of the more obvious claims:

      1. Dr Mansur writes that by traditional Islamic methodology the peaceful verses of Sura 5 must abrogate the Sword Verse of Sura 9 since Sura 5 was produced after Sura 9. This is the case using the Noldecke chronology but the traditional Egyptian chronology has them the other way round. I can find no obvious reason to prefer one chronology over the other. Perhaps Dr Mansur can but to baldly state that Sura 5 follows Sura 9 is misleading.

      2. Dr Mansur refers to the few negative references to the Jews in the Koran. There are those who claim there are hundreds of such. I have not counted them but my impression has always been that there are many and just looking through Sura 5 I see certainly more than just a few.

  4. Wellington says

    Nov 26, 2014 at 12:33 pm

    I cherish the First Amendment. Too bad every Western nation doesn’t have such a provision in their constitution. As for the “British Constitution,” it is indeed an amalgam of precedent, statutes and documents like Magna Carta and the Petition of Right, but it could still use a First Amendment type precedent, statute or document similar to the First Amendment to the American Constitution, the document that four-time UK Prime Minister, William Gladstone, called the greatest document ever developed by man. Again can be seen the extraordinary wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers. I might add that it’s not just a coincidence that what constitutes the Second Amendment was deliberately placed immediately after the First—-for those who get my meaning.

    • jihad3tracker says

      Nov 26, 2014 at 12:57 pm

      Hello Wellington — Yes, as a self-described 2nd Amendment Democrat, I get your meaning quite clearly.

      Through decades of life in Virginia, I have participated in firearm-related fun, by handloading rounds ( choosing powder, primer, bullet, case and then assembling them via a special press ) for 4 pistol calibers and 3 rifle calibers. The goal of us fanatics is, as one humorous wag put it long ago, to get results that “can shoot the antlers off a gnat” .

      BTW, can you steer me to a link ( which explains in less than a million words — Brits are a wonderfully loquacious lot ! ) — whether the right to “political speech” is uniformly codified and settled law in all of the UK ? Big extensive subject — no doubt — but perhaps with your guidance I’ll reduce my ignorance about it.

      And, since our Yankee Thanksgiving is fast coming, howzabout suggesting an adult beverage of the stout, ale, or porter species for me to try . . . and kindly tell me the temperature at which to drink it.

      Cheers,
      J3T

      • Wellington says

        Nov 26, 2014 at 7:53 pm

        Thanks for your response, jihad3tracker. Unfortunately, I can’t steer you to a specific link that would deal with your understandable query about permissible, political speech in the UK and its current status.

        I do know that most everyone concerned with freedom is, essentially, aghast at how freedom of speech in the UK has been curtailed in recent years. Well, PRECISELY, I would argue, because the British Constitution is not a single document but rather a mixture of precedent, statutes, custom and the like, it therefore has as its weakest link at any point in time the degree of good and common sense, as well as a cherishing of true freedom, by the elites in charge. Well, the elites presently in charge, woefully underwhelming and uninformed people like Blair, Brown and Cameron, are betraying liberty and the best of the British tradition, I have no doubt. They are execrable in my opinion, even more execrable than the Muslims themselves. After all, facilitating evil is argubaly even worse than evil itself.

        As for fine beers, I really like porters. Two of my favorites are Yuegnling Porter, brewed in Pennsylvania, and Breckinridge Vanilla Porter, brewed in Colorado.

        May you and yours have a memorable Thanksgiving. Take care for now.

        • jihad3tracker says

          Nov 26, 2014 at 8:57 pm

          I will pursue a pint or two of the porter faves you mention — the Breckinridge Vanilla sounds terrific . . .

        • gravenimage says

          Nov 28, 2014 at 8:11 pm

          I think you’re quite right, Wellington—where freedoms are not explicitly spelled out, they are more likely to be violated. One cannot just rely on “commonsense” prevailing, especially in such mad times.

  5. Alex says

    Nov 26, 2014 at 1:50 pm

    None of this would have been necessary if the ad was a bit less provocative. It is a bus for crying out loud: a very public and conspicuous venue. Even if the statement on the ad is (probably) true, it is crossing the line of due civility in my humble opinion. There must be a better way.

    • jihad3tracker says

      Nov 26, 2014 at 9:19 pm

      Hello Alex —

      Here is the problem if we say that paid messages in a “public and conspicuous venue” should be ” a bit less provocative”, illustrated with several examples :

      A. As a Hindu, I think the Christians’ bus ad making fun of Ganesh is disrespectful, so my friends will blow those vehicles to smithereens.

      B. As a Jew, I think the Buddhists’ tram ad making fun of Moses is hateful, so several local rabbis are planning to derail lots of passenger cars.

      C. As a Wiccan, I think the Scientologists’ rickshaw ad denigrating black magic is defamatory, therefore a coven of witches will set fire to your headquarters.

      Ridiculous, yes, deliberately to show where that vector of reasoning can lead . . .

      • Alex says

        Nov 27, 2014 at 10:13 am

        Two (or more) wrongs don’t make another wrong better. I choose the high road. There’s a friggin’ limit to hatred which just adds fuel to the flames. I don’t like Islam, heck, I just hate everything of it. But this bus ad is uncivil and will not improve anything, quite the opposite. Extremism is not the solution.

        • Darren says

          Nov 27, 2014 at 2:11 pm

          I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

          Also a bus ad is not extreme, beheading people for insulting islam though is extreme.

    • gravenimage says

      Nov 27, 2014 at 12:12 am

      Alex wrote:

      None of this would have been necessary if the ad was a bit less provocative.
      ………………………….

      What crap. Under Shari’ah *no* criticism or even questioning of islam is allowed—and that is *exactly* where we are headed if groups like CAIR have their way.

      And more: Muslims regularly threaten violence if anyone dares speak out.

      More:

      Even if the statement on the ad is (probably) true, it is crossing the line of due civility in my humble opinion. There must be a better way.
      ………………………….

      So *speaking* about Islamic Jew hatred crosses the line of civility? I notice that you do not mention that Islamic Jew hatred *itself*—which leads to the murder of Jewish people and calls for their genocide—is not something you condemn as uncivil.

      • Alex says

        Nov 27, 2014 at 10:23 am

        Cognitive dissonance my friend. You see only what you want. No one here is saying we shouldn’t speak about the evil of Islam. Read my comment again if you will, but I suspect your beliefs (hatred) are blinding you so hard that you won’t even bother trying to see through. Extremism (on either side) only breeds more trouble, not improvement.

        • Wellington says

          Nov 27, 2014 at 11:29 am

          Gravenimage is no extremist, Alex, and not guilty of any “cognitive dissonance.” Islam allows no criticism of any kind. Whenever CAIR or other Muslim organizations complain about Islamophobia, blah, blah, blah, but then often say that legitimate criticism of Islam is OK, they never give an example of permissible criticism of Islam, at least none that I have ever come across. But go ahead, provide a criticism of Islam, specifically of some Islamic dotrine, in your own words that you believe is appropriate. Just tearing down is not enough. You have to build too.

        • Mirren10 says

          Nov 27, 2014 at 12:04 pm

          ”Cognitive dissonance my friend. You see only what you want.”

          The only person here who is exhibiting ”cognitive dissonance” is you.

          There is nothing ‘extremist’ about recognising, and stating, the truth.

          The second definition ( see below) sums you up.

          By the way, as gravenimage pointed out, in all your puerile waffle about ‘civility’, where is your condemnation for the acts perpetrated by the ISIS, and *millions* of mohammedans world wide ? Any condemnation for the murderers of 3,000 of your countrymen ? Any condemnation for Hamas, that takes its Jew hatred out of the Koran, and wants to destroy Israel ? Or would that be ‘uncivil’ ?

          Is it ‘uncivil’ to publicise these actions, take note of them ? What you are suggesting is that we should be ‘civil’ about an ideology that wants to a) murder us, or b) convert us, or c) force us to live as dhimmis and pay the jizya until we feel subdued.

          Before you use big words, find out what they actually mean.

          In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the excessive mental stress and discomfort experienced by an individual who (1) holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time or (2) is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values. This stress and discomfort may also arise within an individual who holds a belief and performs a contradictory action or reaction.

        • gravenimage says

          Nov 28, 2014 at 3:07 pm

          More from Alex:

          Cognitive dissonance my friend. You see only what you want. No one here is saying we shouldn’t speak about the evil of Islam. Read my comment again if you will, but I suspect your beliefs (hatred) are blinding you so hard that you won’t even bother trying to see through. Extremism (on either side) only breeds more trouble, not improvement.
          ……………………………………….

          So how is supporting AFDI speaking out against that evil “hatred”?

          This is what Alex is characterizing as “extremism”:

          Islamic Jew-hatred: it’s in the Quran

          Two-thirds of all US aid
          goes to Islamic countries

          Stop the hate

          End all aid to islamic countries

          And the caption to the photo reads:

          Adolf Hitler and his staunch all the leader of the Muslim world Haj Amin al-Hussein

          The photo itself could not be less provocative: it is a black-and-white picture of two men talking. If the two men in question were not the Nazi Führer and the Mufti of Jerusalem, then the image might, in fact, be considered rather dull.

          The idea that either the text or the photo itself is somehow “crossing the line of due civility” is complete and utter rot.

          Yet he moans that “there must be a better way”! than exposing commuters to this measured piece.

          Note the false Tu Quoque: that pointing out the Islamic support for the murder of Jews during Hitler’s Holocaust and that support itself are both “extremism”.

          Then, further, he adds this:

          Two (or more) wrongs don’t make another wrong better. I choose the high road. There’s a friggin’ limit to hatred which just adds fuel to the flames. I don’t like Islam, heck, I just hate everything of it. But this bus ad is uncivil and will not improve anything, quite the opposite. Extremism is not the solution.
          ……………………………………….

          Note what he is doing here: he is saying that running this measured ad is a “wrong”, just as the Holocaust and antisemitic Islamic genocide are. Even if one thought the ad in poor taste, which I do not, this comparison is *not* even-handed—instead, it is insane.

          He is also saying that the “hatred” of condemning genocidal Muslim antisemitism will add “fuel to the flames”. This means one of two things: either the idea that if civilized Infidels understood the violence of Islam that they themselves would become violent towards Muslims—but the specter of this happening has proven false over and over again. The purpose of this falsehood is to stir unearned guilt in Islam’s victims, and to keep them from speaking out against Muslim savagery.

          The other likely meaning is that if we dare mention Muslim violence against us, that it will result in more Muslim violence against us.

          This is the usual: the idea that violent Jihad is caused by the mention of violent Jihad on the part of its own victims. The purpose of this is to stir fear in Islam’s victims, and to keep them from speaking out against Muslim savagery.

          Indeed: notice, despite Alex’s dubious assertion that “no one here is saying we shouldn’t speak out against the evil of Islam”, he himself never spells out the sort of opposition to that evil that he would consider civil.

          Very telling.

          Finally, his assertion that I am exhibiting “cognitive dissonance” is false. I have always been completely consistent on exposing Islamic evil—in fact, on exposing evil of every kind.

          Not so Alex, I’m afraid.

        • gravenimage says

          Nov 28, 2014 at 3:14 pm

          Thank you so much, Wellington and Mirren, I much appreciate your kind words.

          And you are both right, of course, to point out that Alex does not himself actually condemn Islamic savagery at all—just rails against the “incivility” of our doing so.

  6. mortimer says

    Nov 26, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    Wishful thinking. Dhimmitude is a status no one should endure! You are a romanticizing, unrepentant supremacist, a menace to freedom, equality, democracy, pluralism and human rights. You entirely skipped the forced conversions of Jews throughout the Muslim world! But then you are living in taqiyya and your own Islamic Fantasy Island!

    • Mirren10 says

      Nov 27, 2014 at 12:32 pm

      ”@mortimer, LOL! That was literally the funniest thing I read all day! I’m literally rofl!”

      If *that’s* the funniest thing you’ve read all day, you must be leading a very restricted life.

      I note that in your convulsions, you have failed to address the points Mortimer made. I would also suggest you read what Maimonides had to say about the ‘joys’ of living under the mohammedan boot. It’s in his ”Epistle to Yemen”.

      There are plenty other Jewish philosophers and historians who make the same points.

      You should try a bit of reading, dear, to broaden what passes for your mind.

    • gravenimage says

      Nov 28, 2014 at 3:26 pm

      It is hardly surprising that the appalling “Christy”—who has spammed the above load of ahistorical hogwash before—would consider a litany of the Islamic threat to freedom, equality, democracy, pluralism and human rights to be the “funniest thing {she’d] read all day”. *Ugh*.

      This thread, in fact, has brought out the Muslim apologists—they hate seeing anyone speak out against the barbarism of Islam.

  7. Alex says

    Nov 26, 2014 at 2:09 pm

    I ask: would you ride a bus displaying this ad? And wouldn’t you think that it might yield the exact opposite of what is intended (i.e., victimizing the Muslims)? Not even mentioning the radical jihadist nut who would definitely feel so offended that he or she would want to blow the bus with the people riding it? I am surprised and disappointed that Mr. Spencer associates himself with this sad initiative.

    • mortimer says

      Nov 26, 2014 at 2:22 pm

      You are saying, if we say Islam is violent, they will want to kill us. Well, don’t the jihadists want to kill us everywhere ALREADY? It’s only law enforcement that is holding them back.

      Do you want to do nothing to alert the populace to the danger in our midst?

      Muslims can stop being ‘victims’ by changing their thinking, i.e. by explaining why Islam does not teach warfare against disbelievers.

      You are implying that Islam does not teach warfare against disbelievers. You need to prove it. Making empty assertions here does not work. We have read Islam’s source texts. You haven’t. You are guessing.

      • The Buffster says

        Nov 26, 2014 at 7:08 pm

        I yell “Hooray!” that the freedom of speech was upheld in this case. That a judge has upheld the right of people to political speech even when it is deemed by others to be false is crucial. This is a judge that understands the First Amendment and the importance of contentious political public argument – something that Islam wants to wipe out, not to mention a good portion of PC non-Muslims who want to do the same.

        However, I question the wisdom of putting this ad on the side of a public bus. I can see it on a billboard along the highway, but I think a bus company should be free to refuse to put such a lethal ad on their buses, since it is an invitation to jihadis to blow up their property, not to mention any brave (or blind) people inside or, even more likely, to render the bus wearing this ad economically useless as people refuse to board it.

        People who want to fight the jihadis and the doctrine of Islam should not be forcing reluctant people to risk their persons, property, and finances. Even the government has the right to protect public property and finances (but if it rejects anti-jihadi ads, it must also reject propaganda in the other direction.)

        Those of us who understand what’s at stake have every right to risk our own lives and fortunes, and in doing so to pave the way for others to be brave.

        There’s no reason that I can see that such an ad needs, specifically, to be stuck on a bus.

        • jihad3tracker says

          Nov 26, 2014 at 7:42 pm

          Hello Buffster —

          I appreciate your worry about people being killed, but let me ask you : what makes this a “LETHAL” ad ?

          The answer — Muslims who cannot accept the idea that in our American democracy, freedom to express opinions about religion and politics is essential !

          If such ads should not be “stuck on a bus” — “since it is an invitation for jihadis to blow up” property, how far away from human activity is a reasonable distance ?

          Subways all across cities in the U.S. have backlit illuminated pedestals for messages, and commuters walk within several feet of them . . . easy targets for explosives to kill.

          SO THOSE AD PLATFORMS ARE PROHIBITED TOO — by the potential pathological slaughter of Islam’s activists ?

          As Robert Spencer has asked here on JW before (paraphrasing), do we say that Muslims are not capable of self management when encountering opposition to what they believe ? Such behavior is that of a 5 year old — Are you granting adults immunity for violence and homicide ?

        • Arthur says

          Nov 26, 2014 at 9:22 pm

          The jihadis would like to blow up the bus whether it runs the ad or not. Jihad is not a response to non-muslim actions, it is a response to non-muslim existence. Hiding our speech and arguments out of fear or reprisal is the essence of dhimmitude.

          I would like to see an ad campaign of multiple choice questions where people go online to find out if the got the answer right. (But I suppose you could just print it upside down at the bottom, like in newspaper puzzle pages).

          For example,
          Q: How old was Mohammed’s bride Aisha when they consummated their marriage?
          a. 9 years
          b. 13 years
          c. 18 years
          d. Mohammed practiced celibacy

          or
          Q: Mohammed said of a vision of hell, “I saw that the majority of the inhabitants were ______”
          a. thieves
          b. murders
          c. wealthy
          d. women

          or
          Q: Regarding the marriage contract, Mohammed said a Muslim man…
          a. Must not have sex outside of marriage
          b. Must commit forever to one woman
          c. Can marry up to 4 women
          d. Cannot have sex with non-Muslim slaves

          Sometimes questions cause people to think more than statements. And then they are surprised at their ignorance when they get the answer wrong.

          I’d like to see Ben Affleck take such a quiz, for example.

        • The Buffster says

          Nov 27, 2014 at 12:50 am

          Hi, Arthur.

          I like your ad campaign idea for the multiple choice questions.

          Now, regarding this: “The jihadis would like to blow up the bus whether it runs the ad or not. Jihad is not a response to non-muslim actions, it is a response to non-muslim existence. Hiding our speech and arguments out of fear or reprisal is the essence of dhimmitude.”

          Yes, I know jihadis would like to blow up buses whether they run anti-Islam ads or not. Note that I said: ” …I think a bus company should be free to refuse to put such a lethal ad on their buses…”

          I did not say that I thought it should *not* be free to put such an ad on their buses.

          The point of my post was that when you put such an ad on a piece of property, you make yourself and that property stand out as a more desirable target. So *whoever owns that piece of property* should have the say as to whether or not they want to add that perceived extra risk. The risk, in this case, is not only a concern about adding risk regarding the destruction of the property, but even in the absence of explosion or vandalism, the bus may be rendered useless by such an ad because people may refuse to get on it until the ad is removed.

          I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that such ads would be more likely to attract violence or vandalism, or just plain scare customers away. So if a business decides to reject the ad on that basis, I would not condemn them. They have the right to not draw a target on their property.

          Perhaps I made an error in assuming that SEPTA is the owner of the busses or is involved in funding them? If the actual owner of the buses wants to put the ads on there and risk their property, that should be up to them, just as it is up to potential passengers whether they ride on the buses or not.

          Sure, the risk of terrorist attack is always with us and will be until Islam withers away or is *somehow* rendered fangless, which I’m afraid is likely to be a very long time. If no buses run anti-Islam ads, we’re still going to get Islamic terrorism, and the terrorism will be the fault of the ideology that says followers should make war on the unbelievers until all the world has submitted to Islam, not the fault of those who resist that ideology.

          But resistance is something that has to be voluntary, done by brave people who can see clearly what’s at stake and are ready and willing to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.

        • Arthur says

          Nov 27, 2014 at 11:29 pm

          Buffster,
          I agree with you that if the bus service is privately owned, then they should decide what they will or will not advertise. I believe a lot of privately owned advertising agencies refuse to advertise for purposes they deem morally reprehensible. Chick-fil-a stays closed on Sundays because of religious reasons. Private businesses must work within the law, but business decisions belong to the owners, not the public. The public has no standing to demand that Chick-fil-a stays open on Sundays just because they want a chicken sandwich on Sunday!

          Of course, it gets more complicated with the bus company is publically contracted with a clause of exclusivity or when it is an outright government owned or managed company. Imagine then, the city-owned bus company could run ads for one political candidate and then refuse ads for another. Clearly, there is something not right about that scenario (especially if the incumbent is controlling the advertising). But then that’s the whole slippery slope of socialism, as we step away from a free market for the “common good.”

      • Alex says

        Nov 27, 2014 at 10:32 am

        Mortimer, is doesn’t mean we should “do nothing”. Between two extremes, there’s always room for something that’s more reasonable and will yield the results you want rather than the opposite. Extremism NEVER works, except in the twisted minds of a small minority who thrive on it (witness some commenters on this blog).

        • Mirren10 says

          Nov 27, 2014 at 11:07 am

          ” Extremism NEVER works, except in the twisted minds of a small minority who thrive on it (witness some commenters on this blog).”

          What is ‘extremist’ about the truth ?

          It is *true* that there is Jew hatred in the koran, it is true that Hitler admired islam, and it is true that he met with the Mufti. It is also true there was a muslim SS division, and it is true Hamas wants to destroy Israel.

          The ISIS is not’ extremist’, it is simply acting out koranically mandated demands.

          Instead of coming here and making smug and silly comments, I suggest you actually *read* the koran, the hadith, and the life of mohammed. I would also urge you to take the common sense route of accepting that the ISIS murderers believe what they say, and what they say is in the koran.

          Further, the majority of commenters here do not have ‘twisted minds’. We have the basic intelligence to understand what is in the koran, and what many, many muslims say about Jews and other non-muslims. I suggest you set about acquiring the same basic intelligence.

        • Darren says

          Nov 27, 2014 at 2:30 pm

          Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

          How do I thrive on it? I see an enemy who won’t be reasoned with, one who will not stop trying to kill innocent people, and an ideology that tells its founders to kill or enslave me. Talking to a hungry grizzly might make you feel good, but it won’t stop the grizzly from eating you. People like you are who I refer to as victims in waiting. The only reason you are not a victim is because of those people who you say are extreme.

          You preach from your soapbox in a nice safe comfortable environment. People like yourself are part of the problem. No one here thrives on anything, we are sick of innocent people being killed every day in the name of a sick ideology. Being tolerant of evil is evil itself. You want to reason with the devil, good luck with that. For now though you can stand up on your soapbox and claim the moral high ground, I wonder though if you ever see the fangs of the predator baring down on you how you will act then. Though someone like you will still try to reason with the grizzly and be eaten. Victims in waiting usually act that way.

        • Darren says

          Nov 27, 2014 at 2:39 pm

          Of course from the perspective of people who have live protected and sheltered lives wanting to confront a predator before you get eaten is considered extreme. My twisted mind wants innocent people to quit being butchered and I know from my own experience in dealing with savage beasts wearing the skin of humans that the only thing they understand is force and fear. I know saying the obvious and wanting to confront the problem before it grows out of control is the sign of a twisted mind. You’d be surprised at how effective preemptive action is against predators. For now though claim the moral high ground from your soap box, wag your finger and sigh, I do wonder though when you start feeling the heat how you will react.

    • Randy says

      Nov 26, 2014 at 2:59 pm

      “This sad initialitve” as you call it, Sir, is the AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE INITIATIVE. It is fighting the Islamic Borg for all of us.

      • Alex says

        Nov 27, 2014 at 10:46 am

        Randy: defending freedom by provoking to an extreme level and by choosing the LOW ROAD will, in the end, give you exactly the opposite (i.e. increasing tensions, more conflicts, eventually chaos so LESS freedom).

        “Fighting the Islamic Borg”, I say yes absolutely, but with extreme means? I say no because you will RUIN the legitimacy of your noble cause and make the ennemy look better rather than worse. Please think about it. History, over and over and over again.

        • Mirren10 says

          Nov 27, 2014 at 11:12 am

          I agree with Mr Jihadski.

          Your puerile kumbya waffle is typical of the ‘liberal’ mindset. Huffpo will definitely suit you better. People here have common sense.

        • Darren says

          Nov 27, 2014 at 2:46 pm

          The enemy can’t be reasoned with, , they can”t be reasoned with, they won’t stop.

          When an enemy like that is on your doorstep there is only one thing that has stopped them throughout history, overwhelming force and fear. Keep living in your dream world with the white picket fence though, the only reason you can live like that is because of other people who have the same mindset and can see through reality. Europe and the west will learn that lesson eventually once again.

        • Mirren10 says

          Nov 27, 2014 at 6:30 pm

          Alex is a twit.

          ”People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” George Orwell.

          But, according to Alex, that is ‘extremist’, and we must be ‘civil’ to our would be murderers. Faugh.

    • gravenimage says

      Nov 28, 2014 at 4:19 pm

      Yet mote from Alex:

      I ask: would you ride a bus displaying this ad? And wouldn’t you think that it might yield the exact opposite of what is intended (i.e., victimizing the Muslims)? Not even mentioning the radical jihadist nut who would definitely feel so offended that he or she would want to blow the bus with the people riding it? I am surprised and disappointed that Mr. Spencer associates himself with this sad initiative.
      ……………………………..

      I speculated above that Alex was either positing that civilized Infidels would ‘victimize Muslims’ if they learned the depth of Islamic savagery, or that that Muslims themselves would be violent if we dared to say that Muslims are, indeed, violent.

      Let’s take the first assertion: if Infidels have not targeted Muslims over 9/11 or any of the *24,489 Jihad terror attacks since*, then the idea that they are going to go on violent Islamophobic rampages against Muslims upon learning that their leaders supported the Holocaust is clearly grasping at straws.

      And the latter? This is the idea that if we don’t say that Muslims are violent, perhaps they will *stop murdering us*. This is so clearly false—it is not the pointing out of Muslim violence that causes Muslim violence.

      Also, note how Alex has moved the goal posts—first he pretended that his only issue was with the “extremism” and “hatred” of the message—now he makes it clear that he has a problem with any criticism of Islam appearing in a public place.

      More:

      Randy: defending freedom by provoking to an extreme level and by choosing the LOW ROAD will, in the end, give you exactly the opposite (i.e. increasing tensions, more conflicts, eventually chaos so LESS freedom).
      ……………………………..

      Alex *still* has not said what sort of criticism of Muslims supporting the Holocaust *would not* be “extremist”. This cannot be an accident.

      He also makes it clear that he *our fault* if there are more “tensions”—what a way to describe enslavement and murder!—that is *our* fault for daring to mention Muslim violence.

      He also—what gall!—asserts that if we exercise our freedom of speech in defense of freedom, that it will lead to less freedom.

      More:

      “Fighting the Islamic Borg”, I say yes absolutely, but with extreme means? I say no because you will RUIN the legitimacy of your noble cause and make the ennemy look better rather than worse. Please think about it. History, over and over and over again.
      ……………………………..

      So—it will “ruin” the legitimacy of opposing Jihad to oppose Jihad openly.

      The lesson of “history, over and over again” as Alex would have it is that Winston Churchill, far from waking up the free West, instead made the Nazis look better. What crap.

      Notice he doesn’t actually say how showing Muslim support for genocide *makes them look better*.

      And he tries to characterize that bravery of AFDI and Robert Spencer as “sad”.

      And then he actually slips here: he talks about the legitimacy of *our* cause—note that he no longer even plays lip service to its being his own.

    • gravenimage says

      Nov 29, 2014 at 2:36 pm

      Alex wrote:

      I ask: would you ride a bus displaying this ad?
      ………………………………..

      Not only would I ride a bus displaying such an ad, I *have* ridden a bus displaying this exact ad.

      Alex appears to believe that this ad has not successfully run before, but he is wrong. The ad has run in Washington, DC, and my own hometown of San Francisco on MUNI busses, which is where I encountered it. By the way, the time I rode the bus was at least three-quarters full and a score of passengers boarded at my stop—not one rider balked due to the ad that I could see.

      The photo above is in fact a picture of the ad on the side of a MUNI bus.

  8. mortimer says

    Nov 26, 2014 at 2:15 pm

    It is an moot point whether or not Husseini was ‘leader of the Muslim world’. He certainly saw himself as such and his resume has many examples of leadership in it.

    In 1931, Amin Al Husseini was founder and President of the World Islamic Congress. After WWII, it actively shaped the agenda of the Muslim world.

    During WWII, Amin Al Husseini was Head of the Muslim Hanzar SS Division.

    According to Andrew Bostom, Hajj Amin el-Husseini was considered “the preeminent Arab Muslim leader of the World War II era. Concordant with his stature then, in Islamdom, el-Husseini was viewed by Adolph Hitler (and also the Waffen-SS), as a ‘Muslim pope.’ ”

    Following WWII, Husseini continued as leader of World Muslim Congress and gave advice to Pakistan and many Muslim organizations. It would be hard to find a Muslim in his time who had more influence.

    • cs says

      Nov 26, 2014 at 2:26 pm

      As far as I remember he was the mufti of Jerusalem, and his nephew was the leader on the fight against the yushiv, and lost of course.

      • Darren says

        Nov 26, 2014 at 3:21 pm

        I also believe he was the one who invented the whole jihad of the womb idea.

  9. cs says

    Nov 26, 2014 at 2:15 pm

    I read all Leon Poliakov, which is very critical to this period quoted, but I think this text is a enormous exaggeration, for instance, South France was a good place for study, and it was among Christians. We don’t really know how it would configure, this is very much guess work.

  10. ECAW says

    Nov 26, 2014 at 3:19 pm

    This article, written by a professor of Jewish history and appearing in the Jewish Chronicle, has been copied and pasted here before by Christy. He adds no comment. I wonder where he’s coming from.

    The article puts me in mind of what Mark Durie says, that the dhimmi isn’t expected only to bear his oppression but to deny it and speak well of his oppressor.

  11. Walter Sieruk says

    Nov 26, 2014 at 3:35 pm

    As for that picture of Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem there is on this subject the internet site http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com Furthermore, that above picture does bring to mind the teaching of the Bible .For in Proverbs 21:11. it reads “Though they join forces the wicked will not go unpunished…” [N.K.J.V]

  12. pdxnag says

    Nov 26, 2014 at 5:28 pm

    I would like to see the content of the “expert” argument posted here as a post, with Robert’s comments interspersed.

  13. Darren says

    Nov 26, 2014 at 5:59 pm

    At least it’s a small victory. I guess I can yell Wolverines! Though a wolverine is an appropriate animal to signify people who are anti jihad. I may be wrong but as far as I remember a wolverine is the type of creature that kind of minds its own business, but when you back it into a corner it is one tough SOB. That kind of describes most people who are anti jihad. We would rather just be left alone in peace to live our lives the best way we can, but if you back us or our families into a corner we can be a mean bunch. Though going about our business in peace not bothering people is what we really just want to do, but we also will defend ourselves and our families if they are in danger.

  14. Rebecca says

    Nov 26, 2014 at 8:04 pm

    Nobody saved the Jews from anything. Jewish will always survive, no matter what the circumstances. If you claim Islam helped them at a certain point, great. But either way the Jews, no matter what happens to them, no matter how many challenges they face from without, due to persecution and murder, or from within, due to abandoning traditions, they always were, and will always be, Jews that will hold onto their faith no matter what the circumstances, and the Jewish people can never be destroyed.

    (I would give my life rather than convert out of my faith- as Jews b4 me have done for thousands of years)

  15. sidney penny says

    Nov 26, 2014 at 10:23 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8GlY2zwZhg

    Robert Spencer on Radical Islam (Cal Poly, SLO)

    “The judge rejected SEPTA’s argument that it could ban the advertisement based on SEPTA’s claim of falsity, holding that the First Amendment does not permit government officials to be the “arbiter’s of truth” regarding matters of public concern.”

    Bit like;

    Who decides what is hate speech?

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/cal-poly-free-speech-under-attack-in-academia

    Cal Poly: Free speech under attack in academia

    AT 2.00.40 question was that I support free speech and not hate speech-super answer to the question asked by the woman and also the answer to a few question before than as well.

  16. The Buffster says

    Nov 27, 2014 at 2:27 am

    Hi, jihad3tracker.

    “If such ads should not be “stuck on a bus” — “since it is an invitation for jihadis to blow up” property, how far away from human activity is a reasonable distance ? ”

    I admit I’m in conflict about this, because I know it’s essential to speak out about Islam, but I’ve always believed that a person has a right to risk himself and his own property, but not others and their property. But with Jihad, speaking out is essential – and yet just speaking out in the vicinity of non-consenting people and their property could put them in danger. I *get* the problem you’re presenting and the fact that if we’re going to fight the greater evil effectively (and we must), there’s going to be a risk of collateral damage at the hands of the enemy. And there will be that, anyway, whether we openly resist or sit on our hands. We have to resist..

    My main focus in my original post, however, was the right of whoever owns the bus (or some other property), even if it’s a government agency, to decide whether to risk that property or not. (See my reply to Arthur, below.)

    I’m still wrestling with where to draw lines in this area.

    “Subways all across cities in the U.S. have backlit illuminated pedestals for messages, and commuters walk within several feet of them . . . easy targets for explosives to kill.

    “SO THOSE AD PLATFORMS ARE PROHIBITED TOO — by the potential pathological slaughter of Islam’s activists ?”

    I think there are all kinds of ways to get the word out, some being better than others, some being wiser than others. I think, for example, a billboard by the highway would be a *better* place than a crowded subway station. I’d love to see it there. Although in a traffic jam at rush hour…

    Yeah, I see your point. And yet I still can’t quite divorce myself from mine.

    (But I do think the highway billboard is better.)

    “As Robert Spencer has asked here on JW before (paraphrasing), do we say that Muslims are not capable of self management when encountering opposition to what they believe ? Such behavior is that of a 5 year old — Are you granting adults immunity for violence and homicide ?”

    No, the perpetrators of violence are morally responsible for their choices. They deserve the full blame and full punishment.

    A while back I forgot to lock our back door, and somebody came into our house at night and robbed us while we were sleeping. (This has happened more than once.)

    Morally, was that my fault? No. Morally we should be able to leave all our doors and windows unlocked, or even open with a nice refreshing breeze blowing through, without having to worry about being robbed. Morally, it’s the robber who deserves all the blame and the punishment, which I wish could include me punching him unconscious. Morally, my husband and I deserve to have our property back and the freedom to live in an unlocked house.

    But we would have been better off if I’d just remembered to lock the back door. 🙁

    • The Buffster says

      Nov 27, 2014 at 2:34 am

      “My main focus in my original post, however, was the right of whoever owns the bus (or some other property), even if it’s a government agency, to decide whether to risk that property or not. (See my reply to Arthur, below.)”

      Ooops. I should have said “See my reply to Arthur, ABOVE.” Also, I goofed and didn’t nest the post in my thread. 😛

      • Mirren10 says

        Nov 27, 2014 at 11:15 am

        ”My main focus in my original post, however, was the right of whoever owns the bus (or some other property), even if it’s a government agency, to decide whether to risk that property or not.”

        Their attempted refusal to run the ad was not based on *risk*, but on their erroneous assumption, most likely prodded by mohammedans, and brain dead leftists, that the ad was *racist*.

        When, in fact, it is merely *true*.

  17. duh_swami says

    Nov 27, 2014 at 5:48 am

    You really expect someone to read all that? Why don’t you explain instead why Allah said Jews were the worst enemies, and then turned some of them into apes and pigs…How did Mahound driving the Jews out of Yathrib help the them? How did his raid on Khabar help them?

  18. Kathy Brown, Esq. says

    Nov 27, 2014 at 9:48 pm

    Alex is wrong. Graven Image, Mirren and Jihadski, are right. I know this through experience:

    When I was a ‘new’ lawyer I had a Domestic Violence case which was quite serious: Death threats to the lady, etc.

    But I was stumped: The language (my client recorded her abusers insults/threats) was beyond-the-beyond.. It was the most violent, degraded, sociopathic abomination I’d ever heard. And of course one does not admit such language to a court of law…

    I shared my concern with a colleague. She set me straight. ‘No Kathy!’, she said. ‘That is EXACTLY what your client must testify-she must SAY THOSE REVOLTING WORDS, in open court. The Judge/Jury must hear, with specificity, precisely what such threats are.’

    She was right and we won the case.

    ‘The truth is a strong sword’. We worried how ‘much madder’ the perp would be, did we lose the case. Alex worries about the same thing, so to say. In both cases ‘nothing but the truth’ will do. And if-God forbid-the truth ’causes’ more violence? That will serve to better illustrate the ferocity of the criminals who-again in both cases-were already and long since, confirmed in mayhem and evil…

    • gravenimage says

      Nov 28, 2014 at 4:29 pm

      Salient parallel, Kathy.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • James Lincoln on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • revereridesagain on Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration
  • SKA on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Eva on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.