“You’ve scurried along the gutter floor for too long, unnoticed. Your prejudice towards Muslims deserves to be put on blast. I’ll do that!” the “Islamophobia” scam artist Nathan Lean has previously tweeted to this author. Like his previously documented anti-Semitic hatred of Israel, such screenshotted tweets from this longstanding Georgetown University associate’s now-erased Twitter account display the emptiness of his career against “Islamophobia.”
Ensconced in prestigious institutions, Lean has always been quick to employ sophistry in defense against any scrutiny of Islam. “The Bible is full of vicious & violent stuff, and is no different than the Quran,” he has tweeted. This shockingly shallow analysis compares singular events and laws for particular times and places described in the Bible with violent Quranic commands.
“Being a Muslim doesn’t make one prone to violence,” Lean has correspondingly tweeted, in utter disregard of the influence of jihadist ideologies upon Muslims past and present.
Therefore a 2017 Barcelona, Spain, jihad suspect was for Lean merely an individual isolated from any wider Islamic ideology. “Driss Oukabir doesn’t represent Islam. He doesn’t represent Muslims. He represents only himself, and only he is to blame,” Lean tweeted.
In complete contradiction of such pontificating on Islam, Lean has then claimed that he is “not the spokesperson” for the “world’s 1.7 billion Muslims.” (They actually might have far more popular spokespersons among jihadists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.)
When discussing Islamic modesty restrictions for women, Lean has focused on instances in free countries like the United States where some Muslim women might choose to wear hijab. “Insisting that the veil is oppressive denies agency to women who choose to wear it” and “feeds on Islamophobic narratives,” he has tweeted. He thereby ignored the far larger number of Muslim women worldwide coerced into veiling by various physical and psychological pressures.
Lean has accordingly falsely equated critical analysis of Islamic veiling with police state enforcement of veiling in countries such as Iran as “telling women” what they should or should not wear.
Such statements reflect that Lean has made a name for himself pontificating that any criticism of Islam, an idea, is in reality a form of bigoted prejudice against individuals. As a key promoter of the totalitarian term “Islamophobia,” he rejects any skeptical placement of this propaganda within “scare quotes.”
Lean thus has striven to define “Islamophobia” as a form of racism, an evil that for leftists like him seems to always lurk behind any disagreement. He has therefore condemned any vetting of Muslim immigrants, who come in a wide variety of complexions, for dangerous jihadist ideologies. “Presuming that brown-skinned refugees need to be scrutinized for their potentially murderous tendencies is, in fact, racism,” he has tweeted.
Accordingly, Lean has rejected the “sly claim that because Islam isn’t a race, one can’t harbor racist views towards Muslims, and that strident criticism of their religious beliefs is innocuous and indeed noble.”
The self-appointed judge Lean has then condemned this author, as the “suggestion that Islam is merely a belief system is a loophole for you to malign Muslims with impunity. Religion is about identity.”
Ultimately, no criticism of Islam could survive this equation of ideas with individual identity, as in Lean’s statement that “religion is more than a mere disembodied collection of ideas. It is integral to identity.”
As Lean’s previously analyzed tweets have shown, he disparages anyone like the Muslim reformer Zuhdi Jasser, who deviates from Lean’s judgments of Islam as an “anti-Muslim bigot.” Lean effectively danced on the grave of the late eminent historian of Islam Bernard Lewis, who “was a racist whose caricatured depictions of Arabs and Muslims paved the way for unbridled prejudice.” Lean took umbrage at a thoroughly empirical proposition, namely that Lewis “peddled the idea that ‘the West’ is superior to all others. Good riddance.”
Lean slandered the legal authority Alan Dershowitz as a “known plagiarist” and “virulent Islamophobe, who also disparages Arabs as easily as he breathes.”
Lean also unloaded his bile on Brigitte Gabriel, a “venomous snake-of-a-woman that heads the anti-Muslim hate group” ACT for America.
For someone who tirelessly invokes Muslim honor, Lean is actually highly dismissive about religion. “I actually don’t care for religion at all — any of them. I do care, however, about prejudicing people based on their religious identity,” he has tweeted.
For all of Lean’s talk about “Islamophobia,” Lean can be quite caustic about Islamic beliefs such as the claimed miraculous journey of Islam’s prophet Muhammad into heaven from the Temple Mount in seventh-century Jerusalem. Irrespective of any beliefs “integral to identity,” Lean has called this an “absurd thing to believe *actually happened.* Of course it didn’t. Reasonable people often suspend critical thinking when it comes to religion.”
While at the supposedly Catholic institution of Georgetown University, Lean has had no reservations about mocking Christians and their identity. With a flawed understanding of the Christian doctrine of Jesus having been fully God and fully man, Lean has tweeted in ignorance of historical evidence substantiating Gospel accounts that:
Ah, yes. The God who sent his virgin-born, half-God-half-man son to planet Earth, knowing in advance that he’d be nailed to a tree and would magically bust out of his grave 3 days later and fly back up to Heaven. Makes perfect sense. Completely logical.
The prospect of a loving God sharing in the trials and toils of ordinary human life somehow merely provokes derision from Lean, who gives no indication of any serious consideration of Christian claims. “Ah yes, that makes *so much more” sense. A God-man. Who moonlights as a carpenter,” Lean has tweeted.
Lean’s caustic irreverence more befits an atheist like Richard Dawkins, not a self-proclaimed expert at Georgetown’s Saudi-established Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU). He has tweeted:
I don’t understand an invisible Daddy God who impregnated a Jewish teen, which produced a Man-God, who was nailed to a tree and busted out of his grave, and is said to come back to planet Earth one day and ultimately judge me? You’re right. I don’t understand that at all.
In Lean’s desperate attempts to argue that Christian doctrine is just as violent as Islamic doctrine, he has distorted the Christian teaching of Jesus’ self-sacrificial atoning crucifixion for human sin as a manifestation of Christian aggression.
Our religion is a peaceful one. It is tolerant. That is, if you forget that it’s *entirely premised* on an act of premeditated murder whereby God the Father sends his Son to the Earth to be tortured & killed by Romans and nailed to a tree.’—A hypothetical religion.
No matter how sophomoric Lean’s analysis, this self-anointed guru feels qualified to comment upon all manner of theological matters, as in the wake of the sex scandals involving Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. Following the disgrace of this longstanding ACMCU supporter and awardee, Lean deemed the “priesthood” as an “archaic post to begin with,” an assessment that might surprise Catholics at Georgetown and other Christians.
For someone who celebrates himself on Islam and other religious issues, Lean is really just another pop theologian. His religious views are no more rigorous than those of rock star Madonna or his longtime associate and religious sensationalist Reza Aslan, whom CNN fired for his profane anti-Donald Trump tweets. Lean has decried this author as someone who has “zero education in anything related to Islam; no Arabic,” yet Lean’s few years of Arabic study is a meager Islam-related credential. His scholarly “Islamophobe” opponents, including Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, or Ibn Warraq have far more impressive resumes, to say nothing of native Arabic-speaking non-Muslims like Gabriel, Nonie Darwish, or Walid Phares.
Like many in ivory towers in general and Middle East studies in particular today, Lean is an academic farce who peddles politically correct pieties as profound erudition. Students contemplating the expenditure of their precious tuition funds or laypersons, whom he would presume to lecture, should keep his fraudulent nature in mind for future reference. He is an intellectual snake-oil salesman, not a high priest proclaiming metaphysical holy writ.
Yet disturbingly, like many leftists Lean thuggishly seeks to destroy anyone who attempts to expose the vacuity of people like him, as a final article on his past tweets will examine.























PABLO says
Nathan is quite lean on the reality that surrounds him.
thebigW says
One of the tweets by this Nathan Lean guy:
“The Bible is full of vicious & violent stuff, and is no different than the Quran,” he has tweeted.
means it would be accurate to say — “Nathan Lean says the Quran is quote “full of vicious & violent stuff”
Bet his Muslim employers wouldn’t like that lol
mortimer says
OOPS !!! Mr. Lean has hereby admitted that the doctrine he defends is “full of vicious & violent stuff”.
Well seen. Can’t get out of that, can he?
mortimer says
QUESTION FOR NATHAN LEAN about AL WALAA WAL BARAA (Islam’s apartheid teaching)
Dear Mr. Lean, you obviously know something about HATE … so tell us …
What is the correct amount of hate that Allah requires of you?
Should a Muslim hate the DIRTY KUFAAR
1) one time a week?
2) every second day?
3) hate kafirs five times a day?
4) hate the disbelievers every 20 minutes?
5) join ISIS and enslave them?
6) drive your car towards police and kafir pedestrians at a fairground so as to slaughter the kufaar ‘wherever you find them’ (K.9.5)?
What is ‘THE RIGHT AMOUNT’? Your great ISLAMIC knowledge of hatred (Al Baraa) is eagerly sought in this matter.
mortimer says
Mr. Lean, since you believe ‘Islamophobia’ is RACISM …
1) is KAFIROPHOBIA also RACISM?
2) When you became a Muslim, did you change your race?
3) When you leave Islam, when you change your race?
Thank you.
James Lincoln says
mortimer,
If Mr. Lean becomes a Muslim – and then leaves Islam – as an apostate he will likely need to change his IDENTITY.
PS I know that you know this already.
mortimer says
Ho, ho, ho, Mr. L., I am acquainted with former Muslims who changed their names to ‘Clark’ and moved to a different city.
Surely, this ‘kafirophobia’ gig Nathan Lean is paid to perform will become quite tiresome and unsatisfying to him eventually. I truly pity him when that happens. He will see what a waste it was. I doubt he is still a believer in Islam.
The more one studies Islam, the more its flaws and errors STAND OUT. There is in fact no argument with which to defend Islam, whether historical, moral or logical. You will note that Nathan Lean only uses ‘DISTRACTIONS’ (such as the ‘tu quoque’) and never presents a true, complete ‘ARGUMENT’ … that is because NO argument in defense of Islam is possible. Lean has realized this already.
It’s a matter of time before he packs it in. He will be a sad, lonely, old man. Yours, mortimer
mortimer says
Mr. Lean says regarding Islam: “I’m not the spokesman.” That is outrageous falsehood! Most assuredly, Natan Lean is a paid spokesman of Islam. He is paid everyday to be a spokesman of Islam and his paymaster is a foreign country. He communicates often with those foreigners. He promotes whatever line they wish him to promote.
jarmanray says
Maybe if the clowns who employ the word “prejudice” would open up Webster’s College Dictionary, they would read, “1. An unfavourable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought or reason. 2. Any PREconceived opinion or feeling either favorable or unfavourable.” Witnessing the atrocities on a daily basis from JW, Gatestone Institute, Pam Geller and BNI constitutes a basis for unfavourable feelings and opinions concerning Islam. I witnessed Islamic justice and love first hand in Plateau State, Nigeria where Christians were (and still are) ravaged and slaughtered by their Muslim neighbors and I traveled with other US Embassy members to observe the slaughter and havoc perpetrated by the Fulani sub human slugs. When I express unfavourable opinions concerning the pernicious cult of the pedophilic mass murdering monster, I do so from past and present information. For someone professing to be an academician with little or no knowledge of the subject for which he speaks and who abuses English grammar so badly, Nathan Lead’s opinions are completely irrelevant.
Jay says
He is a mental midget who takes us all for fools. This clown has been at it as long as the morons like aslan and choudary! To hell with them all, I suggest barrett light 50’s to deal with these vermin!
mortimer says
Jay, ask God to forgive you. We are the good guys because we use FREE SPEECH and LAWS ON THE BOOKS. Vigilantism is Islamic and beneath you. I invite you to repent.
Spiro says
Honestly I couldn’t read all of his crap
I’m having trouble listening to self appointed so called intellectuals
Who speak with their heads up their arse
Jack Holan says
There are few comments made about Nathan Lean since his World is the ‘Nothingness’ of jean Paul Sarte. A World dominated by the G-d of Rath and a Community that you’re either with them or against them and if the latter on orders from Allah throough his Divine Perfect Messenger You are to cut them down Now Lean thats the Gist of your Religion without pussy footing around and as far as Islamophobia Islam based upon its tentants is synonymous with HATE of All Mankind except fellow Muslims. Even this only occasionally
gravenimage says
Tweets Expose Nathan Lean’s “Islamophobia” Hoax
……………….
Fine expose by Andrew Harrod.
John H. Harvey says
I’m interested in what Lean calls “1 random tweet.” Where would I find it?
Larry A. Singleton says
No offense; But is someone ever going to fix this rotten “Print” feature here?
CRUSADER says
What a pathological hater !!!
Nathan Lean is such a jerk of a cheap mudslinger.
To claim that Bernard Lewis was a racist is MALARKY!
To claim that a stalwart warrior (Brigitte Gabriel) as a “snowflake” is lunacy!
To claim that Alan Dershowitz doesn’t know what he is talking about is blatant
irresponsibility! AD has made a magnificent “Case FOR Israel” !!!
Nathan Lean might as well be outed as an acolyte of Alinsky tactics.
He takes from the Leftist Playbook like a brainless automaton with a nasty mouth!
To remark that the Bible is violent as the Queer’an is — that misses the point that the Bible tells a long story about morality and struggle, where the Queer’an lifts passages from other scriptures and makes excuses for raiding and booty taking.
The Bible describes violence in the history of humanity’s growth toward Love.
The Queer’an prescribes violence as a way to conquer the material world while losing one’s soul forever…. The Queer’an is Shaytan’s literary path to destruction!
Linde Barrera says
I hate no Muslims nor do I wish them harm or death. But I do hate the evil ideology of Islam. I am “Islamophobic” and proud of it. Bring it on Omar, Tlaib, CAIR.
mortimer says
Linde, by using that term, you are walking into their trap. Don’t do it. I personally call myself ‘Islamo-aware’ or ‘Islamo-literate’. I know what I’m talking about because I studied Islam seriously and I am NOT guessing. Are you guessing? It takes at least 10 years to read Islam and understand what it’s all about.
unbeliever1 says
Without this article indicating that this Lean was a “professor”, one would get the impression that he was just some simpleton based on his various simplistic pronouncements. What a moron!
Larry A. Singleton says
“Without this article indicating that this Lean was a “professor”, one would get the impression that he was just some simpleton based on his various simplistic pronouncements”
Exactly!
I get the same type of moronic, uninformed, adolescent responses from these idiots I often accuse of “being too stupid and too lazy to study the issues and READ!”
I tell them up front that they aren’t “readers”. The only response I get is name calling.
I’ve made almost a hobby of personally challenging these “professors”, “reporters” and assorted “experts” on Islam and “Islamophobia”. From them only the embarrassing sound of silence. The pleasant sound of crickets chirping in the morning. heh-heh.
Larry A. Singleton says
I “study the issues”; So I went to my “Nathan Lean/Reza Aslan” file. (One of them teaches here in Riverside where I live) I also went to Nathan Lean’s Twitter page and found this:
Nathan Lean
@nathanlean
“You’re blocked”
“You can’t follow or see @nathanlean’s Tweets. Learn more…”
Didn’t he whine about Brigitte Gabriel blocking him?
In any case being blocked by these fascists has become almost a badge of honor for me as it happens all the time. After I’ve confronted them with the facts. Mostly by reposting articles from Jihad Watch, FrontPage, Gatestone, MEQ, etc. Even on a university Fakebook page I can’t remember right now.
mortimer says
Nathan Lean has NO argument with which to defend Islam. He merely uses DISTRACTIONS and frequent ‘TU QUOQUES’ to take the attention off his LACK OF A DEFENSE. This is also called a ‘red herring’ distraction.
Islam is unhistorical, amoral and self-referentially incoherent and Nathan Lean understands that perfectly, since he is paid to defend Islam every day … as a full-time, paid spokesman of Islam.
Islam can only be defended with the sword, because no valid argument has been adduced with which to defend this medieval Death Cult. The ‘argument of the sword’ or the ‘appeal to force’ (argumentum ad baculum) is main argument of Islam: ‘Believe this, or we’ll kill you.’
Today in the 21st century, Muslims like Nathan Lean use a variation of the argument from force: ‘Don’t criticize Islam or we will cause you to be fired from your job.’
The argument from force is NOT a logically valid argument. Nathan Lean knows that, but he uses the same approach over and over, because he’s getting paid to do so and most of his audiences are unsophisticated in the laws of logic and don’t know how he is being dishonest.
He must feel sad that his whole life is a dishonest promotion of vicious and amoral ideas that cannot be defended.
Larry A. Singleton says
The “argument” is also one of “common sense”.
I was a “rabid racist” as a kid. Once upon a time my only word for black people was “those fuckin’ niggers”. I used to get in fights with and jumped by black kids in junior high & high school, sometimes 6 or 8 at time, who used to try and stomp and punch my guts out.
Thanks to a Greatest Generation Gra’mom who passed on her love of books, reading and history on to me I decided (even then) to read about black history, slavery and the Civil Rights Movement. Thanks to what I read and some positive experiences with some black kids, changing from “racist” to “non-racist” was relatively easy and I got over it fairly early. Simply because being a racist Didn’t Make Sense. As in common sense.
Years later, (about ten years ago) I applied this “common sense” approach when I decided to check out this “Islam thing” after reading The Haj by Leon Uris and Because They Hate by Brigitte Gabriel almost back to back.
I used to chant “nam myo ho renge kyo” when I was fifteen after meeting some Buddhists on “E” Street in San Bernardino. I’ve checked out other “religions”. But Christianity is the one that made the most “sense” to me.
Islam makes absolutely no sense. (Especially after I found an article on “Jihad” in a Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari I’d bought online)
It’s also about “comparing”. And really, there simply is no comparison between Islam and Christianity, Muhammad and Jesus and “Jihad” and “Peace”.
I wrote a “Racism Speech” that I put in my Facebook Notes. Not a speech so much as an excerpt (draft) from my memoirs I’m writing for my two boys.
I’ve invited countless race hustlers to go read it after they’ve called me a “racist”. I’ve never gotten a response.
I’ve practically made a hobby of personally challenging these “reporters” “professors” and assorted “experts” on racism, Islam and “Islamophobia” and other ISSUES to go READ the articles at Jihad Watch, Gatestone Institute, FrontPage, etc.
Again……No response. Any “argument” is dead in the water as soon as you present them with the facts. That they can’t dispute or refute. Because they don’t READ. They don’t “study the issues”.
What I’ve discovered is that most of these people, and especially the useful idiots who can’t pull their heads out of their MSNBC’s, are those who simply don’t read. They’re not “readers”. And they tell me as much themselves when I recommend they read Robert Spencer, Daniel Greenfield, Caroline Glick, etc;
“I wouldn’t read anything written by…..” Fill in the blank.
It’s why they’re reduced to adolescent name calling. In the years I’ve been raising hell on the Internet I’ve never seen any “progressive” or “liberal” EVER post an article, essay or book to back up their bullshit. Not once.