This is the line that the Left has pushed in the media, as well as in intelligence and law enforcement circles, ever since 9/11 (and before that as well): to take much notice of Islamic jihad activity will only fuel “Islamophobic” attacks against innocent Muslims. Therefore, we must not talk about jihad activity.
There is absolutely no basis for thinking this. FBI hate crime statistics year after year show that Jews and others are targeted in hate crimes far more often than Muslims are. No attack on any innocent person is ever justifed. The idea, however, that Muslims are particular victims of harassment and persecution in the U.S. or the West in general is unfounded. The calls for silence about jihad activity in order to avoid placing innocent Muslims at risk is a sly and clever tactic to bring about submission and acquiescence to Sharia blasphemy restrictions and acceptance of that jihad activity.
“Salman Rushdie’s attack was an assault on free speech – but not a clash of civilisations,” by Daniel O’Gorman, The Conversation, August 15, 2022:
…At present, it is not possible to comment on the specific motives of Rushdie’s alleged attacker, Hadi Matar, which are the subject of a legal investigation. However, we can begin critically considering how best to respond to this disturbing incident, which has been so long in the making….
It’s hard to think of another novel over which so much blood has been spilt. News coverage of Rushdie’s novel has tended to emphasise its depiction of the Prophet Muhammad as the primary cause of offence. However, outside of the headlines, measured scholarly debate about the text’s perceived blasphemy has continued for over 30 years….
As literary critic Anshuman Mondal has argued, the framing of the Rushdie affair and its aftermath in the media has sometimes been troublesome. Representations of the novel as a battleground between free speech and Muslim fundamentalism belie a refusal to engage seriously with a reality that is more complex. What is lost in this characterisation is the fact that many Muslim readers hold conflicting, multi-faceted views about Rushdie and his text….
The attack was undoubtedly an assault on free speech. However, recent scholarship on Islamophobia warns us that a collective eagerness to focus on Islamic extremism can lend itself to a perception of the world in which western-style liberalism is pitched simplistically against religious – and especially Muslim – “barbarism”. This sort of worldview, academics further warn, can lead to an increase in discrimination towards Muslims….
PMK says
Extremism doesn’t exist in Islam. All acts to defend Allah or his sidekick are lawful and justified. The fact that the rest of humanity is so afraid of Muslims that people with opposing views are silenced is going to lead to our undoing. Constantly turning the other cheek when confronted with violence done in the name of Islam will not save us.
somehistory says
How about discrimination against the filthy belief system that can’t hold up to criticism, and molzums feel they have the “right” to defend in any way they may choose, even to murdering any who just speak the Truth of the matter….whatever the subject may be.
There is a campaign today to hide the Truth on any topic. For instance, it is a known fact that young Black males murder young Black males more often than do the police. But, one must not point to that fact.
The same is true for the topic of mozlums in society and in the world. Many don’t want to acknowledge the fact…the simple Truth…that mozlums are taught every day of their lives, that they have the obligation an the right to murder those who disagree with their belief system.
Nor to they want to acknowledge the Truth taht mozlums move away from their home nations in order to spread their belief system…by the sword if necessary…and that any action is acceptable to help them do that. Even to things that they otherwise are not allowed to do….like smoking, drinking, watching t.v., etc. these are prohibited…unless the mozlum is using them to spread the cult of submission and death.
mozlums are not …not…the “target” of hate and discrimination….they are the shooters of the slings and arrows, the wielders of knives and bombs and swords. mozlums use lying words to twist the facts so they may appear to be the victims, even when they are attacking the True victims with murderous assault.
somehistory says
plz excuse my many typos. ‘)
mortimer says
I disagree that you have ‘a right’ to invent your own facts about what Muslim think. Your opinions are not facts, and if you present your unfounded opinions as established facts without proof, they are unsupported calumnies. Slandering your neighbor is un-Christian. And bigoted venting and overgeneralizations that calumniate others are not ‘excuseable’ but uncivilized.: (“molzums feel they have the “right” to defend in any way they may choose,”) No, they don’t. The mullahs guide Muslims to COMMAND THE RIGHT and FORBID THE WRONG. Individual Muslims do not interpret Sharia law.
Muslims actually know that to be excessive in applying Sharia is sinful. The Koran forbids Muslims to ‘TRANSGRESS THE LIMITS’ of punishment imposed by Allah.
However, all Muslims know they have a ‘DUTY’ to defend Islam according to a very strict and proportional protocol that is ‘LEGISLATED’ and CODIFIED in Sharia law.
The protocol is the following: 1) persuasion, 2) domineering words, 3) harsh words, 4) vandalism, 5) threatening intimidation, 6) physical assault and even 7) armed attacks to enforce Sharia law. Reliance of the Traveller (RoT) Chapter Q5.1-8
To fail to do those things in that order would be sinful. Enforcing Sharia law is the mission and GREAT COMMISSION of all Muslims.
You need to learn more about Islam. Your calumnies are guesses that are unfair to Muslims. We should be fair to our neighbor and love him as ourself. .
………………………………………………………………………………………
somehistory says
oh pshaw
you need to learn the definition of slander or as you write calumnies….It has to be verbal and it has to be untrue.
the one making a charge of slander is the one who must ******prove****** that the *verbal* statement is untrue.
get with the program “mortimer.” You are the one saying untrue stuff and you are too arrogant to admit it.
You have no clue about what makes someone or something unChristian because you don’t know Christ. You only know islam. You are mozlum and should just stop pretending to be a Christian. You fail at the pretense.
gravenimage says
Mortimer wrote, replying to Somehistory:
I disagree that you have ‘a right’ to invent your own facts about what Muslim think. Your opinions are not facts, and if you present your unfounded opinions as established facts without proof, they are unsupported calumnies. Slandering your neighbor is un-Christian. And bigoted venting and overgeneralizations that calumniate others are not ‘excuseable’ but uncivilized.: (“molzums feel they have the “right” to defend in any way they may choose,”) No, they don’t. The mullahs guide Muslims to COMMAND THE RIGHT and FORBID THE WRONG. Individual Muslims do not interpret Sharia law.
……………………………………
Mortimer, you *are* aware that Muslims can *behead peaceful people* as this pious Muslim tried to do with Salman Rushdie, and this does not in any way violate Shari’ah law?
More:
Muslims actually know that to be excessive in applying Sharia is sinful. The Koran forbids Muslims to ‘TRANSGRESS THE LIMITS’ of punishment imposed by Allah.
……………………………………
The problem is that brutally murdering Infidels *does not* transgress the horrors preached by Islam. *Surely* you know this? You have in fact noted this yourself.
More:
However, all Muslims know they have a ‘DUTY’ to defend Islam according to a very strict and proportional protocol that is ‘LEGISLATED’ and CODIFIED in Sharia law.
The protocol is the following: 1) persuasion, 2) domineering words, 3) harsh words, 4) vandalism, 5) threatening intimidation, 6) physical assault and even 7) armed attacks to enforce Sharia law. Reliance of the Traveller (RoT) Chapter Q5.1-8
To fail to do those things in that order would be sinful. Enforcing Sharia law is the mission and GREAT COMMISSION of all Muslims.
……………………………………
Mortimer, the claim that all Jihadists carefully go through this list with everyone of these steps is obviously not the case–many cut right to #7. But perhaps this pious Muslim thought that after 30-plus years that Rushdie had been warned enough.
Does that mean that you are OK with his being stabbed?
More:
You need to learn more about Islam. Your calumnies are guesses that are unfair to Muslims. We should be fair to our neighbor and love him as ourself. .
……………………………………
Heaven forfend that someone might say anything critical of Muslims trying to behead spectacled authors! How terribly unfair. You are enraged at Somehistory for saying negative things about bloody murderers, but excuse those murderers as neighbors who “just have the wrong ideas”. *Ugh*.
somehistory says
g, thank you for your comment.
I think ”mortimer” would like to silence me. He must ask his mullah, first however, according to him. Unless that is his own position.
mortimer says
Calumny is always a sin and never justified against our neighbor. Less than 1% of Muslims are jihadists. Most Muslims believe they should obey the laws of the countries they live in. To claim otherwise, I would like to see sources. I know the sources, because I have studied this issue.
-Calumny, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., writes in his Modern Catholic Dictionary, is “Injuring another person’s good name by lying. It is doubly sinful, in unjustly depriving another of his good name and in telling an untruth. Since calumny violates justice, it involves the duty of making reparation for the foreseen injury inflicted. Hence the calumniator must try, not only to repair the harm done to another’s good name, but also to make up for any foreseen temporal loss that resulted from the calumny.”
Taking the low road is unChristian.
somehistory says
” mortimer” wants to be the one who decides what is “sin.” Nope, won’t wash.
You don’t get to decide what is sin and what is not and you are so arrogant that you wont’ even admit that you have the incorrect definition of slander.
If you can’t keep straight a *man-made law* what makes you believe you can define what is against God’s Laws?
And you can quote other humans all you wish, but I follow the Bible and what Jesus Christ said, not some Catholic or much less, you, “mortimer.”
mozlums who rape and murder and terrorize and lie their way through life to spread the filth of the unholy books, are snakes, offspring of vipers, unwashed cups full of uncleanness, whitewashed graves and children of the ‘thief (who) comes to steal, kill and destroy,” satan the devil.
defend the snakes, “mortimer.”
gravenimage says
Mortimer, you have not been able to point to anything that Somehistory has said that is untrue, so her pointing these things out is not calumny.
And Islam *itself* claims that non Infidels should have a position of power over any Muslim, nor are Infidel laws considered above Shari’ah. You have cited this yourself. The fact is that few Muslims respect Infidel laws and courts.
Citing these things are simply honest, so it is not calumny as you would have it.
And your believing that Jihadists have a great reputation to maintain is questionable to begin with. This Islamic thug who stabbed Rushdie *should* be condemned, and no one should be called to apologize for doing so.
James Lincoln says
mortimer says,
“Most Muslims believe they should obey the laws of the countries they live in.”
This is certainly not true of muslims in the United States.
The Center for Security Policy published a 2015 study showing that 51% of muslims in the United States support sharia law. And 25% support violence against people who give offense to islam:
https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
john smith says
Mortimer
Your fighting a losing battle with your constant attacks on Somehistory, no one is supporting you. Somehistory is one of the most devout anti- jihadists we have at JW and deserves praise not criticism.
somehistory says
thanks guys, g, James and John. 🙂 🙂
LibertyORdeath says
This is indeed the mainstream view on jihad terrorism – it is more important to protect muslims, even jihadis, from insults and criticism than it is to protect non-muslims from the jihad terrorism that has been ongoing for almost 1400 years. Even the most deadly “islamophobic” attacks such as those in Christchurch and Canada pale in comparison to the nearly 42,000! jihad terror attacks carried out since 9/11. And even if only counting muslim victims, the number of muslims killed by “islamophobic” attacks or even defensive actions taken by the State of Israel are infinitesimally small compared to the number of muslims killed by other muslims in jihad attacks on Sunnis, Shias, Ahmadis, and Sufis. Therefore the logical conclusion is that muslims should be much more concerned about jihad terrorism than the so-called threat posed by “islamophobia”.
Why such a disconnect between reality and perceived threats? Could it be the drastic change in the way we talk about jihad? How about the even more dramatic change that the mainstream media has made in its coverage of the subject of jihad terrorism and islamism in general? Or the growing sentiment that “white supremacy” is the greatest threat to the West?
All of this propaganda seems to be working all to well in N. America and Europe. How do we get people to look at the facts and data and ignore the propaganda? When even so-called “conservatives” are willing to jettison free speech in favor of protecting people’s feelings we have a serious problem on our hands. We cannot allow the leftist/globalist alliance to define the terms of discourse. We have already seen the line pulled so far to the left that the moderate position is indistinguishable from the radical leftist perspective of just a few decades ago. From race to islam to biological sex and acceptable subjects for primary school teachers to so-called climate change to gun rights and abortion laws we have allowed the radical left to define the terms of debate in each and every area.
When we as conservatives or libertarians use the language of the left to incorrectly label our principles as “far-right” or “extremist” we are doing a huge favor for the radical left and the deep-state globalists that fund them. I am incredibly tired of reading a “conservative” author or watching a “conservative” TV personality use words like “pro-choice”, “far-right” ,”conspiracy theorists”, “assault rifle” or “gender fluid” as if they are academic or scientific terms that accurately describe conservative beliefs.
If those who would have been considered “moderate democrats” 2 decades ago are now called “far-right” then it seems obvious that there is a disconnect between the reality of what the term “far-right” even means and how it is projected onto our political discourse. The longer we continue to allow ourselves to be defined by our enemies without the appropriate pushback from mainstream conservative sources like Fox News or The American Conservative the more we allow the Overton Window to shift further and more irretrievably to the left.
I commend Mr. Spencer and the other writers here at jihadwatch, along with other outlets like OAN, Revolver magazine, Infowars and VDARE for refusing to bow to leftist imposed definitions of the important political topics we deal with every day. But we need more. We need to fight back by accurately defining the spectrum of political positions from far-left Marxism and Anarchism to true moderate positions and truly far-right fascism. Only by moving the window back to it’s traditional center can we begin to break up the globalist leftist hegemony regarding politics. The Rushdie story and it’s inevitable resolution is a great example of this type of problem. We cannot allow the “moderate” opinion of the importance of free speech and expression to become the same as the “moderate” muslim definition of blasphemy laws or the leftist definition of “hate speech”.
James Lincoln says
LibertyORdeath says,
“This is indeed the mainstream view on jihad terrorism – it is more important to protect muslims, even jihadis, from insults and criticism than it is to protect non-muslims from the jihad terrorism”
Perfectly stated, my compliments.
mortimer says
I must differ with your conclusions. Daniel O’Gorman is recycling the neo-Marxist VICTIMHOOD NARRATIVE.in a disguised form.
I remind you both that Robert Spencer says in this forum quite often that BIGOTRY AGAINST MUSLIMS GENERALLY IS NEVER JUSTIFIED.
The motivation of Muslims and their methods are CODIFIED in Sharia law. Unless Muslims are IN OPPOSITION to Sharia law, then they bear some responsibility if they do not SAY SOMETHING TO STOP the aggressive use of it.
In fact, the reason Daniel O’Gorman’s article is inadequate is because he doesn’t realize that the ordinary Muslim would be PERFECTLY IN FAVOR of Sharia’s blasphemy punishments if it were brought to his/her attention.
Muslims are in LOCK STEP with Sharia law.
Daniel O’Gorman doesn’t even know that. Some ‘academic’ … he has not researched whether or why Muslims agree Sharia law punishments.
Over 60% of Muslims actually agree with brutal Sharia punishments. The remaining 35% are non-practicing, luke-warm Muslims or secret apostates.
Daniel O’Gorman doesn’t even know that either.
somehistory says
“mortimer” still has presented no proof of his so-called stats about what mozlums want their lawlessness to be supreme. he has no proof. the numbers are out of his dreams.
somehistory says
brw, did you turn yourself in yet for the child abuse of the little girl? you know, the abuse you did not report to the LE. It’s time, past time to do the right thing for the little girl.
gravenimage says
Yes–this is the post by Mortimer Somehistory is referring to:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2022/08/hizballah-linked-muslim-academic-if-not-for-rushdie-fatwa-west-would-have-insulted-islam-even-more#comment-2438264
Ugly and bizarre stuff.
gravenimage says
Mortimer wrote:
Muslims are in LOCK STEP with Sharia law.
…………………………..
Mortimer, you just said above on this very thread that most Muslims are fine with obeying civilized Infidel laws.
mortimer says
All of my comments can be supported by references.from Islamic sources or public polls and surveys. I challenge people’s opinions when the facts aforementioned disagree.
There should be no calumny in this forum. Calumny is another word of hate speech, a term I try to avoid, but some of the comments in this forum should not be written. Calumny is a double sin and a form of character assassination that I will challenge. I never calumniate anyone.
‘Never hate your enemies. It clouds your judgement.’
somehistory says
You should learn the definition of words before you use them and then deny that you ever do what the word claims.
when written, it cannot be “slander.” when True, it cannot be “slander.” When the *reputation” of the person is not being *hurt* it is not “slander.”
and this forum is for people to comment on the subject of the threads and to share experiences they have with mozlums and the terror that mozlums commit. and if one knows something that will help others understand the evils of islam, they are free to post it.
mortimer is not the administrator of the site and is not the one to decide what is to be written and what is not to be written.
mozlums who lie, commit rape, commit murder, and scheme to commit terror in order to bring others in line with their religion of evil filth, deserve to be called out for what they are.
they are sons and daughters of satan….by their own choice.
and no matter how many times “mortimer” demands that I stop writing that, by claiming I’m committing a “sin” I intend to keep right on telling the Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth.
mozlum terrorists, rapists, liars….all have a bad rep with the honest people who post here.
Wellington says
Eagerness to focus on Islamic extremism? I must suppose that this academic useful idiot doesn’t know that just since 9/11 there have been over 41,000 documented Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide or, if he does know, that it should be at least doubled before he would concede that the term “Islamic extremism” is redundant.
As for Muslims not fulfilling their many duties to wreak havoc and carnage upon mankind “until all religion is with Allah” (Sura 8:39), these are shirkers per Islamthink and it is imperative to realize this. This guy does not. Willful ignorance of Islam still dominates the West and this is stupid, insupportable and suicidal.
somehistory says
Your comment, Wellington, reminds me of road repair crews. One or two guys will be working, and many others will be standing around, watching. But, they still get paid, even if they are not actually doing anything. Some even just interfere with traffic.
the devout in the death cult, all believe the same, even if they just think and watch instead of “working.” shirking, as you point out. And maybe, interfering with normal traffic.
mortimer says
To Wellington: when academics comment on a problem, they are not ordinary citizens doing so. Academics have a responsibility to GET IT RIGHT by doing adequate research.
The problem is INFORMATION ABOUT ISLAM … the problem is the LACK OF INFORMATION about Islam. Suppressing accurate information about Islam is an UN-ACADEMIC solution.
MORE RESEARCH and MORE INFORMATION is what is needed … not less.
James Lincoln says
So, Prof. O’Gorman:
How does islamic “extremism” differ from the fundamental teachings of islam?
Please cite references.
mortimer says
We don’t know what he means by extremism, but O’Gorman doesn’t explain. For Muslims, Osama bin Laden was not an ‘extremist’. Bin Laden was conducting jihad according to the rules laid down in Sharia, so that was normative Islam.
gravenimage says
Good point, James.
gravenimage says
Oxford prof: Rushdie attack ‘assault on free speech,’ but warns against ‘eagerness to focus on Islamic extremism’
………………………………………
Kind of hard to miss that stabbing of a famous author, no? One who has been under threat for over 30 years? Not as Daniel O’Gorman would have it, I suppose…
More:
“Salman Rushdie’s attack was an assault on free speech – but not a clash of civilisations”
………………………………………
*Really*? And yet, the greatest Shia cleric issued a Death Fatwa on someone for daring to mildly criticize Islam, and all too many Muslims all over the world have agreed. Where does this assault on freedom of speech come from? From Islam itself.
More:
…At present, it is not possible to comment on the specific motives of Rushdie’s alleged attacker, Hadi Matar, which are the subject of a legal investigation.
………………………………………
Of course, the claim that it is impermissible to comment on Matar’s motivations because he will face a judge at some point is *quite false*. O’Gorman either does not understand freedom of speech, or else he hopes that you do not.
More:
However, we can begin critically considering how best to respond to this disturbing incident, which has been so long in the making….
It’s hard to think of another novel over which so much blood has been spilt.
………………………………………
All the blood has been spilt–note this passive phrasing–by *pious Muslims*, on Islamic grounds. Infidels are not doing this.
More:
News coverage of Rushdie’s novel has tended to emphasise its depiction of the Prophet Muhammad as the primary cause of offence. However, outside of the headlines, measured scholarly debate about the text’s perceived blasphemy has continued for over 30 years….
………………………………………
“Measured”–right. What could be more “measured”‘ than a death Fatwa?
More:
As literary critic Anshuman Mondal has argued, the framing of the Rushdie affair and its aftermath in the media has sometimes been troublesome. Representations of the novel as a battleground between free speech and Muslim fundamentalism belie a refusal to engage seriously with a reality that is more complex. What is lost in this characterisation is the fact that many Muslim readers hold conflicting, multi-faceted views about Rushdie and his text….
………………………………………
Who cares? Other books published the same year as the Satanic Verses–1988–include A Brief History of Time, The Silence of the Lambs, The Alchemist, Foucault’s Pendulum, The Bean Trees, Dead Poet’s Society, Cat’s Eye, and All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. Many readers had conflicting, multi-faceted views on these books, as well–yet no one was threatening to *murder their authors*, so few today much care.
O’Gorman expects us to cheer because not all Muslims intend to try and cut Salman Rushdie’s head off–although even many of these, like Yusef Islam (the former Cat Stevens) are happy to see their violent coreligionists do this. He claimed that if he saw Rushdie he would point him out to the nearest armed Muslim.
More:
The attack was undoubtedly an assault on free speech. However, recent scholarship on Islamophobia warns us that a collective eagerness to focus on Islamic extremism can lend itself to a perception of the world in which western-style liberalism is pitched simplistically against religious – and especially Muslim – “barbarism”. This sort of worldview, academics further warn, can lead to an increase in discrimination towards Muslims….
………………………………………
What crap. Most in the West would not care about Islam one way or the other if pious Muslins were not doing things like *stabbing peaceful authors*.
And note the idea that daring to call trying to murder peaceful people a bad thing is “discrimination”–so no condemnation of trying to murder peaceful people from him. Telling–and not in a a good way.
Wellington says
Excellent rebuttal, gravenimage. Academia today is loaded with people who just can’t think sensibly and informedly.
somehistory says
I lend a second hand to what you wrote, Wellington.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Wellington and Somehistory.
mortimer says
Daniel O’Gorman is actually calling for censorship of all news about jihadic terrorism. That would be the result if his ideas was implemented.
gravenimage says
Certainly true, Mortimer.
jca reid says
As Stalin called Western Apologists for his regime, “Useful Idiots”. They are simply in denial as to what is going on. They simply don’t want to see or hear the facts Orwell himself said he was dumbfounded when highly intelligent people simply would not the Truth that was staring right back at them about certain current affairs.
Our Leaders are leading us into a morass & it is the “little people” that will pay the price & get us out of the mire.
mortimer says
Daniel O’Gorman considers it is alright to suppress news and discussion about jihad so that anti-Muslim bigotry may be reduced.
Alan Dershowitz’s method of challenging Prof O’Gorman is called the ‘shoe-on-the-other-foot test’.
If, for instance, someone proposed that there should be no reporting or discussion of pedophiles in the Roman Catholic Church so that there would not be ‘anti-Catholic bigotry’, would O’Gorman agree to that censorship? We all assume O’Gornan would not allow censorship concerning such bad behavior done by Roman Catholics.
O’Gorman’s suggestion is seen to inconsistent and therefore it is a ‘special pleading’ that he denies to other religious groups.
gravenimage says
Daniel O’Gorman is Vice Chancellor Research Fellow in English Literature at Oxford Brookes University. He specializes in contemporary literature, with a focus on global literary responses to terrorism, counterterrorism and space, and has published a number of articles and book chapters on Salman Rushdie’s work–so this vicious claptrap here is not just off the top of his head.
He has also written a book sneering at the War on Terror (admittedly a silly term, but still ugly stuff).
VICTORMc. says
Yawn yawn. ISLAM is the curse of our earth. The rest is just column-filling drivel.