Once again we see it. In The Coming of the Third Reich, historian Richard J. Evans explains how, in the early days of National Socialist Germany, Stormtroopers (Brownshirts) “organized campaigns against unwanted professors in the local newspapers [and] staged mass disruptions of their lectures.” To express dissent from Nazi positions became a matter of taking one’s life into one’s hands. The idea of people of opposing viewpoints airing their disagreements in a civil and mutually respectful manner was gone. One was a Nazi, or one was silent (and fearful).
Today’s fascists call themselves “anti-fascists.” Just like the Nazis, they are totalitarian: they are determined not to allow their opponents to murmur the slightest whisper of dissent.
In the letter below, Stanford’s fascists invoke the Southern Poverty Law Center, without explaining why it is an objective or reliable source as to what is a “hate group” and what isn’t (it isn’t). They invoke the British ban, without explaining why the British authorities have let in numerous preachers of violent jihad while banning me. They claim that “Islamophobia” is “institutionalized through U.S. foreign policy,” when in fact “Islamophobia” is a smear propaganda term designed to intimidate people into being afraid to oppose jihad terror. They claim my views are “racist,” when jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression are not, as far as I know, races. They say: “None of the material Mr. Spencer has published has been peer-reviewed, nor would it hold up to the standards of published research from our institution,” when in fact I would gladly debate any Stanford academic on issues of Islam and jihad, and am quite sure I would win. They claim that “at Stanford, there is no place for unsubstantiated hate speech,” while in reality, I substantiate everything I claim, and their letter is much more of an example of “unsubstantiated hate speech” than anything I have ever written.
They urge students: “Even if you are critical of Spencer’s views, we ask that you do not engage with him, because engaging in a conversation about Islam with a known Islamophobe is a contradiction.” If I were really what they claim I am, they should urge students to ask me questions and show me up for as a fool and liar; instead, they urge students not to engage with me, because they know they would lose, and what I am saying would be shown to be true.
How did it come to be that an opponent of jihad terror would be viewed as a terrible villain on the Stanford campus, while a proponent of jihad terror would without any doubt be welcomed there as a hero? Find out in my new book Confessions of an Islamophobe. Preorder your copy here now.
“An open letter to the College Republicans regarding Robert Spencer,” Stanford Daily, November 8, 2017:
To the Stanford College Republicans and the wider Stanford community:
Last Sunday, the Stanford College Republicans confirmed that they will be hosting Robert Spencer for their “flagship event of the year” on Nov. 14. The event has received $6,000 of ASSU funding and has been widely publicized across campus and social media. The flyer advertises the event, “Jihad and the Dangers of Radical Islam,” as an “honest discussion” with “renowned author and religious scholar Robert Spencer.” The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) describes Spencer as an “anti-Muslim propagandist” who, despite his lack of academic training in Islam, has proclaimed himself an expert and claims that Islam is inherently violent. In 2013, the United Kingdom banned him for his extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric. Spencer is also the director of the Muslim-bashing website, JihadWatch, and the co-founder of Stop Islamization of America and the American Freedom Defense Initiative, both of which are classified as hate groups by the SPLC.
Robert Spencer is an established Islamophobe. Islamophobia, more than just anti-Muslim sentiment, is institutionalized through U.S. foreign policy (the ongoing “war on terror”) and immigration policy (Trump’s xenophobic Muslim ban), extending its violent impact on people from and in Muslim-majority countries. Islamophobia does not just affect Muslim Americans and immigrants in the U.S. but also anyone who is perceived as Muslim – this includes non-Muslim Arabs, Sikhs and others. The College Republicans list the FBI, the U.S. Army and the Justice Department under Spencer’s credentials. Governmental support for Spencer doesn’t mean his views are not racist; it only means that the government itself is guilty of Islamophobic policy. As a campus community, we need to combat all forms of racism, including Islamophobia.
Based on our opposition to Spencer, we have two demands. First, we demand that the Stanford College Republicans cancel the event. As a campus committed to inclusivity, we should reject Islamophobia. By bringing Spencer to campus with ASSU funds, the College Republicans are endorsing Spencer’s bigotry with Stanford’s name and students’ money. Spencer’s arguments demonize Islam and perpetuate fear-mongering against Muslims, including Stanford’s own Muslim community and others vulnerable to Islamophobia. The decision to host this event does not establish Stanford as a campus where free speech reigns, but one where hate speech is given a microphone. If we want to talk about the free expression of ideas, we have to acknowledge the very real consequences of rhetoric like Spencer’s and the role that hosting him at Stanford plays in reinforcing institutional support for him and the status quo, which is Islamophobic.
We support Stanford students’ rights to free speech, but not at the expense of Stanford’s commitment to academic integrity and respect for its students. Bringing a speaker who has proclaimed himself an expert despite having no training discredits not only the organizers but the school as a whole. None of the material Mr. Spencer has published has been peer-reviewed, nor would it hold up to the standards of published research from our institution. And while there is a place for non-scholarly voices at Stanford, there is no place for unsubstantiated hate speech. Stanford’s Fundamental Standard expects students to “respect and uphold the rights and dignity of others” and to “uphold the integrity of the University as a community of scholars in which free speech is available to all and intellectual honesty is demanded of all.” Spencer’s presence on campus violates these basic community principles, and his platform endangers Stanford students. Just last night, Spencer published a blog post on JihadWatch targeting a Stanford student who took down his posters and thus exposing him to his readership. The College Republicans need to ensure that the speakers they invite will not cause potential harm to their peers. Furthermore, if they wish to host a speaker on these issues, they should respect the integrity of our institution and intelligence of their audience.
Second, if the event is still held, we ask that the student body, faculty and the Stanford community boycott the event in solidarity. While some might be inclined to attend, taking part in this event will only legitimize his presence on our campus. The decision to attend is not a neutral one. Even if you are critical of Spencer’s views, we ask that you do not engage with him, because engaging in a conversation about Islam with a known Islamophobe is a contradiction. The tenets of Islam are not up for debate by someone who has no formal training in the religion and whose beliefs inform policy that targets Muslims at home and kills Muslims abroad. Robert Spencer has bolstered this racist foreign policy by linking a religion (Islam) to national security, incorrectly alleging that the lives of Americans are threatened by all those who are linked to Islam. Attending this event to learn about U.S. foreign policy validates the premise that a religion can pose an inherent threat to national security. We need to separate religion from matters of national security. If students want to learn more about Islam, the Markaz Resource Center, the Muslim Student Union and religious studies courses are all valuable resources.
A petition was sent out last week, garnering over 900 undergraduate signatories opposing the use of student fees towards a speaker “who is actively hostile to a large and valued segment of our campus community.” The petition was the first step towards a referendum that would give the student body the ability to vote on the funding appropriation and overturn it if it voted to do so. While some of the funds have already been spent and it is unclear if it will be possible to retract funding, the number of petition signatories and this coalition of over 20 groups indicate widespread opposition to this event.
For any questions or if you would like to get involved in a community response, please contact stanfordagainstislamophobia@gmail.com.
Signed,
A coalition of concerned student groups:
Arab Students Association at Stanford
Asian American Students’ Association
Black Student Union
First-Generation Low Income Partnership
International Student Organization at Stanford
J Street U Stanford
Jewish Student Association at Stanford
Jewish Voice for Peace
MEChA
Muslim Student Union
Sikh Student Association at Stanford
Stanford American Indian Organization
Stanford Democrats
Stanford National Association for Advancement of Colored People
Stanford Sanctuary Now
Stanford Students for Queer Liberation
Stanford Turkish Student Association
Students for Alternatives to Militarism
Students for Justice in Palestine
Student and Labor Alliance
Students for the Liberation of All People
WorkingClassPost says
Stanford Students for Queer Liberation!!!
Don’t they know how many mohamedans would like to Liberate their heads from their bodies?
gravenimage says
Or toss them off the top of Hoover Tower…
Here is a grimly hilarious video from an animator who is gay himself and actually understands the threat of Islam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhvfLIgCLUU
Jon Sobieski says
So all these identity groups are funded by Stanford, and they endorse this insane smear letter. Stanford is a mess, the marxists have total conrol.
gravenimage says
I’m afraid it is the same at many, perhaps most, universities, Jon–including my own alma mater of UC Berkeley.
anke Leibrecht says
ca. 4o years ago my husband and I owned a car, with a “gun control sticker”
on the back window…
Today I do not dare to put such a sticker on my car…out of fear, that someone
who passes by will not agree and shoot me down in my car….this shows how much even
in this example freedom of speech , ,is getting lost more and more.
I admire you Mr. Spencer…please never give up.
gravenimage says
Really–you’re claiming that supporters of the Second Amendment are murdering people with gun control bumper stickers? When has this *ever* happened?
jihad3tracker says
HELLO AGAIN GRAVENIMAGE —
I think commenter “anke Leibrecht” meant that Leftist 2nd Amendment OPPONENTS would take exception to the Right To Bear Arms.
gravenimage says
I’m afraid that’s not how I read it, jihad3tracker. I think anke Leibrecht is saying that supporters of gun ownership would shoot out the car windows.
I don’t think they are saying that those opposed to gun ownership would be shooting out car windows…
Andy says
I just can’t believe what is happening in the world, Everything is upside down. The good has become bad and bad has become good. You can’t even have a honest forth right talk or debate without being shouted down as a bigot and racist by leftists.
I’m old enough to have seen the 100% drastic change in society where it is just unreal. I hear governments and mainstream news talking about “Islamphobia” and yet if someone wants to have a debate about it or protest, we are the ones who are the hate group. I have been to protests and it was always ANTIFA /BLM leftist radicals who were the ones who always were starting the trouble and trying to shut down any type of civil debate.
Andy says
What Black Lives Matter Must Stop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y95Ya7aTFN8
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)
“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad; you are not like us.” (St. Anthony of Egypt)
Raymond Hietapakka says
Isn’t the word “boycott” now sexist and threatening?
Voytek Gagalka says
Did Galileo have ever “been peer-reviewed”? His only “peers” seems to be members of the Holy Inquisition, none of them educated in science and astronomy. Did anyone “peer-reviewed” Einstein’s discovery of the Special Relativity? It was privately published in the scientific journal and at the time more denunciations followed from “his peers” than those who agreed with him. And after General Relativity was published? The most famous statement of the time was that only three persons understood it, so how those morons could “review” it? So much for “peer review.” As if it would hold monopoly on truth and without which discovery of truth would never be possible! Nowadays, I hold views of common-sense plumbers higher than those arrogant “scientists” with their titles and decorations!
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says
Indeed. If they were consistent, much of their beliefs about LGBT and sexual fluidity would not exist because there’s no scientific evidence of those things either. But… they’re not consistent just ideologues. The new religion is the religion of equality, liberty, democracy, diversity etc. and it’s not subject to peer review or falsifiability.
livingengine says
“If students want to learn more about Islam, the Markaz Resource Center, the Muslim Student Union and religious studies courses are all valuable resources.”
Here is the kind of knowledge that Stanford Muslim Student Union approves of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipIMVm2sHrs
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says
Imam Suhaib Webb is Muslim Brotherhood.
gravenimage says
Last Sunday, the Stanford College Republicans confirmed that they will be hosting Robert Spencer for their “flagship event of the year” on Nov. 14. The event has received $6,000 of ASSU funding and has been widely publicized across campus and social media. The flyer advertises the event, “Jihad and the Dangers of Radical Islam”…
……………………….
Are these thugs now openly supporting Jihad? Sure sounds like it.
Charlie Martel says
Who set up these org’s? how many members do they have? Who funds them?
gravenimage says
Who funds them? Ultimately, mostly the American taxpayer.
Charlie Martel says
Can’t help remembering the Life of Brian moment- Where’s the Popular Front for the Liberation Of Judea? Here’s over there.
Charlie Martel says
Sorry typo, should be- He’s over there.
JawsV says
I’m an expert on Islam. Yes, Islam is inherently violent. Islam sucks! The planet would be so much better off without Islam it’s not funny. Dear Stanford leftists: You are morons. So much for Stanford.
Santa Voorhees says
“engaging in a conversation about Islam with a known Islamophobe is a contradiction”
Yeah, you know what else is a contradiction? An intelligent leftist. You are either one or the other, you can’t be both.
Norger says
“Even if you do not agree with Spencer’s views, we ask that you do not engage with him, because engaging in a conversation about Islam with a known Islamophobe is a contradiction. The tenets of Islam are not up for debate by someone who has no formal training in the religion and whose beliefs inform policy that targets Muslims at home and kills Muslims abroad.”
If Spencer is truly as bigoted and ignorant as you claim, shouldn’t you be able to expose him as such in debate? The real reason you won’t engage with him is because you know (contrary to your assertions) that he is in fact extremely knowledgeable about Islam and that you or anyone else who actually engages with him is likely to come away looking foolish. Why should Islam be ring fenced from examination and criticism on college campuses; Judaism and Catholicism certainly aren’t. Our founding fathers taught that the “cure” for speech you don’t like is more speech. It’s called the marketplace of ideas. If you lack the intellectual capacity to engage with Spencer—on a subject of which you claim that he is lacking in knowledge (which you presumably possess)— then perhaps you don’t belong in college.
gravenimage says
Norger wrote:
If Spencer is truly as bigoted and ignorant as you claim, shouldn’t you be able to expose him as such in debate?
……………………
Spot on!
RCCA says
The students at Stanford are not as smart as they think they are if they are unwilling to investigate all sides of an issue dispassionately. I’m a little surprised that they are so fearful of engaging Robert in conversation and debate.
As far as not having academic training in Islam, I noticed that a professor, Dr. Alexander Key, has been teaching a course called “The ethics of jihad” (https://soundcloud.com/kaleidoscope-show/the-ethics-of-jihad) and no one seems to have objected or protested that he only has training in Arabic and Islamic Studies, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University; and Arabic and International Relations, University of St. Andrews.
Norger says
Good stuff. The “Ethics of Jihad;” that’s a fairly provocative name for a course. Call them to Islam and give them 3 choices… I bet I’d get an F.
MFritz says
Why can’t they just stay away if they disagree? Because they know that the only thing that can really harm them is the truth.
Lydia says
Exactly Robert!
The pattern of the Holocaust has overshadowed civilized society once again.
I see it too and have studied the rise of the nazi’s as I wondered ‘how could this happen’?
I know what goes on spiritually regarding evil behind the scenes both supernaturally and naturally, but the mind boggler is: how could all these people, normal people, go along with it?!?! There must have been a lot at work, and I wanted to know how they did it, to brainwash all these people. And I realized that the same thing is happening again all around us.
1. They start slowly, stealthily. It all sounds good, warm, and fuzzy. A hopeful future is offered in the distance, if only we would all just ‘get on board with the plan.’
2. They brainwash people slowly in the culture, here a little, there a little. They use salesman’s tactics to coerce the population. People invest time and money by volunteering or something and are very reluctant to turn away from it and admit that it was wrong because they ‘lost all that effort and time or money.’ Tactics like that.
3. The education system. The news. Magazines. They are inundated. All media. They are drowning in it. By social engineering, they manufacture the consent they are seeking from the masses. Only the masses don’t know it. They push their buttons like robots and ‘pow’! they are passionately angry at an uprising or protest or some other social action event.
4. Political correctness. Now they have a destination to usher everyone into. Not lining up? They just pull out the card with the right slanderous term for you, and most will hop right back into line for fear of being labeled a “_____ -a- phobe” ! All the ‘multi-culturalism’ and ‘diversity’ programs push the desired agenda.
5. Pressure. People are afraid to speak out. They will lose their jobs. They will lose their friends. Their children will be taken away by social services. They will be put in jail. They will be killed, or tortured. It happens with every tyranny, as history has shown. Most fear for their flesh, survival, lives, families, livelihood, comfort, etc. and the price is too high so they are silenced into coercion and submission. Which explains all those ‘hard sayings’ of Jesus, we must always choose Him, and righteousness first, at the expense of self and our own.
6. Persecution. For those who resist, they are villified, marginalized, ostracized, criminalized, and persecuted. There are stages of persecution, one can look that up online too, and the Holocaust followed the pattern also, as we are in now. They have put their crosshairs of the target on us. ‘We’ are the ‘problem’ that needs to be ‘eliminated.’ Hate is “oh so wrong,” but for them, it is okay to hate us. They hate us with a passion, all while calling us the ‘haters,’ and claiming that this is the reason they hate us, as if that justifies their hate. Only, we never hated what was good. We hate what is evil. They hate what is good and love what is evil. That is the difference. We try to reach out in love, but we hate the lies that trap others into lives of evil. We want to rescue people from that because of our love. But they hate us. We have a bullseye on our foreheads, a target on our backs, a yellow star of David on our jackets, a cross around our necks. We have become their enemy just for speaking the truth and standing up for what is right. And this is exactly what I will do. If I die, I die.
We see this persecution coming from different angles, coming against Christians.
That is why I always proclaim that we must be prepared to stand up for what is right, no matter the cost. Jesus told us to do that. If we are ashamed of His words, He will be ashamed of us He said!
The choice comes down to standing for what Jesus stands for and dying like He did, or caving in to the nazi’s of the future and being co-murderers with them. And justifying it for the sake of ‘your family’s survival.’ Until you look yourself in the mirror at night, and can’t hide from the truth anymore. So you see, there simply is no middle ground! We all must choose.
James Stamulis says
Just like good fascists they hate free speech and patriots are getting mighty tired of these cry baby losers!
billybob says
This is what I would like to address for our friends at Stanford…
“None of the material Mr. Spencer has published has been peer-reviewed, nor would it hold up to the standards of published research from our institution.”
Suppose I, as a well educated person in a field unrelated to Islam, but a lay person as far as Islam goes, read the Quran and find within it some very disturbing verses that seem to contradict the narrative “Islam is a religion of peace”.
Suppose I find so many of these, let’s say – over 100 – that I am left very confused. Suppose I go on and read many more verses that seem to be blatantly anti-semitic and overtly concerned with hatred of non-Muslims in general. In fact, it appears to me that those aforementioned “disturbing” verses command Muslims to kill these people – non-believers and Jews. Now at this point, suppose I show you these verses and you read the Quran and find the same thing, and you are left just as disturbed as I was. However, neither of us are Islamic scholars, and we are not sure what to make of this all.
So we are discussing this and trying to make sense of it and I do some research and collect the names of the most respected, authoritative, and influential scholars in Islam. Suppose I consult more than a few Imams in this process over time. Suppose in this process I come to learn which Hadiths are also considered the most respected of all, and I make a startling discovery… these violent verses in the Quaran are an accepted and integral part of Islam, and I report the findings of my research back to you.
Suppose I give you a list of direct quotes, in plain and simple English and their sources, that confirm my worst fears about this religion, with no embellishment or reinterpretation. At this point are you going to complain that my research is not peer-reviewed, nor would it hold up to the standards of published research from Stanford? Of course not, because it is not my own findings I am sharing. It is not my opinion I am sharing. I am merely presenting to you the opinions and findings of the most respected, trusted, and renowned scholars in Islam. You simply cannot make any sort of case about these statements, because neither you nor I are Islamic scholars. We are both compelled to accept the teachings of these scholars and these Hadiths as representative of Islam since they are authoritative.
This is what Robert Spencer is doing. He has spent a couple of decades doing this kind of research and sharing his findings with us here on Jihad Watch. He always provides his sources and at any time we can (and many of us do) independently verify the material he has presented.
Let me share with you that in the beginning a couple of years ago when I was learning about Islam and reading the information on this web site I was shocked with what I read. In fact, I think my first reaction was that I had ended up on some kind of hate site, and even felt like I should wash my hands after viewing a few web pages here. However, I was always compelled to read on by the evidence presented, which I could and did independently verify. In fact, I went to an extreme, and began researching several hours per day. I was not satisfied until well over a year passed and I had completed hundreds of hours of research independent of what was presented here.
I have followed this web site for a few years now, and in that time I have confirmed that Robert Spencer is a trustworthy source, having cross-checked the information he has presented from literally hundreds of other sources – from Islamic scholars, from the statements and lectures of Imams, from the statements of Muslims and ex-Muslims alike.
In summary, it is ridiculous to state “None of the material Mr. Spencer has published has been peer-reviewed, nor would it hold up to the standards of published research from our institution.” because Robert Spencer doesn’t pretend to be an Islamic scholar, nor has he ever stated that he is such a thing. If you read his bio, you will discover that he is well educated and a person that could be expected to be capable of summarizing the research of Islamic scholars, and that is all he is doing here. He doesn’t go off and offer his own theories or opinions. If he has any such theories or opinions he keeps them to himself.
Here on Jihad Watch you will find hundreds and even thousands of news clips, and discussion about them, preceded by insights provided by Robert Spencer. You are free to dispute anything presented in the comment section, and of course people frequently do, but you cannot disagree with the quote from the worlds most authoritative Islamic scholars presented by Robert unless you happen to be one of them. Any even in such an improbable case that you happen to be an authoritative Islamic scholar reading this, and you find something you disagree with, you are not disagreeing with Robert. You are disagreeing with the the scholar he is quoting from.
Norger says
+1
Very similar to my own experience. We live in the Information Age, but there is this huge taboo about objectively assessing what Islamic theology actually teaches. We have to pretend that, unlike any other religion, Islam cannot be understood. Or we give greater weight to the stated subjective beliefs of individual Muslims (“that’s not my Islam”) than to the overwhelming weight of Islamic authorities. As the title to the movie says, can’t we talk about this?
gravenimage says
Yes, billybob and Norger–this is a demand that no one ever be allowed to do their own research, no matter how strong an academic background they have, if it is in a field that is not in full control of the current prevailing view of universities.
This is, of course, not how real scholarship works–and they know it. They are using this ludicrous demand to discredit those who don’t toe the party line.
Norger says
“not how real scholarship works—and they know it.”
Exactly. The hypocrisy is just mind-boggling. Stanford pretends to look down its nose at him, but the reality is Spencer is a real scholar in this field and a most excellent speaker to boot. To those who question his credentials, Spencer says only that he should be judged by the quality of his work. Sounds eminently fair to me. His adversaries discovered a long time ago that Spencer is just too effective to debate in a fair and reasonably neutral forum. Much easier to just demonize him. And now, that’s the only card they have left to play.
michigan man says
the lack of knowledge of islam by these students could fill an encyclopedia,i learned all and more during and after the 72 munich games.it doesn’t take a genius to look all that up at the public library even back before the net.the info was there for those interested in the truth.thank you again robert for all you do.