Richard Silverstein has an article on a credit card company, HAS Advantage which advertises that it contributes to radical and terrorist organizations, including amongst them: All4Israel, Gush Etzion Foundation, Jewish National Fund and American Friends of LIBI (IDF). I would echo Silverstein’s call to stay clear of this company. (hat tip: Dima)

Israeli Affinity Credit Cards Support Settlements, IDF

I just added a Google Adsense adblock to the blog post I wrote about Israel’s Haitian relief effort. To my shock, the very first ad that displayed was this one. HAS Advantage apparently is a patriotic Israeli credit card marketer which signs up Israeli “charities” which benefit from every customer who signs up for one of the cards. I reviewed the list of charity recipients. Some were hospitals, emergency medical personnel, and anti-poverty groups. That’s commendable. But as you can see from the accompanying ad, Honest Reporting, the Israel advocacy media outfit is a beneficiary as are the following pro-Israel, pro-settlement, anti-Arab terror outfits: All4Israel, Gush Etzion Foundation, Jewish National Fund and American Friends of LIBI (IDF).  Apparently, HAS doesn’t believe in things like peace, human rights or co-existence between Jews and Arabs in Israel.  Otherwise, some fine Israeli NGOs would be featured on its charity list.

I’ve written to HAS letting them know of my displeasure and asking them to enroll some peace-loving or human rights NGOs among their charity beneficiaries. In the meantime, steer clear of HAS credit card solicitations which you’ll find at Israeli media sites like Haaretz.

A very interesting read on some of the anti-Muslim machinations amongst some members of Congress that go right over our heads or that we don’t perceive.

How Members of Congress are Advancing anti-Muslim Hysteria to Push a Radical Legal Agenda

January 28, 2010 | by Liliana Segura

Roughly one month after the massacre at Fort Hood and a little over a week after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the “underwear bomber”) tried to blow himself up over the city of Detroit, one of the most conservative Republicans in the Congress, South Carolina Representative Gresham Barrett, re-introduced a sweeping piece of legislation that he first rolled out in 2003 as a freshman on Capitol Hill.

The Stop Terrorists Entry Program (STEP) Act was originally introduced on September 11 (naturally), 2003 “to bar the admission of aliens from countries determined to be state sponsors of terrorism, and for other purposes.” At the time, these countries included Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Iraq and Cuba. The bill not only sought to bar presumed enemies of the state from entering the U.S., it also would have forced “nonimmigrant aliens” — visitors with a temporary visa — to leave the country, within 60 days of its passage.

In other words, they would be deported.

The STEP Act never got very far. But a few days into the new year, Rep. Barrett decided to try again. “Twice in the past two months, radical Islamic terrorists have attacked our nation and the administration has failed to adapt its national security and immigration policies to counter the renewed resolve of those who seek to harm our citizens,” he announced. “In light of these unfortunate facts, the Step Act of 2010 bars the admission of aliens from countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism and Yemen.”

Iranian advocacy groups were especially vocal in their alarm over the re-introduced bill. In an open letter to Barrett on January 9, Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), described his bill as an attempt to “make discrimination against Iranians into United States law.”

“You have said you are reintroducing the STEP Act in response to the Fort Hood shooting and the Christmas Day attempt to blow up an airplane over Detroit,” Parsi wrote. “We hope you recognize that no Iranian has been involved in any of these attacks, or the 9/11 terrorist attacks for that matter. The individuals who carried out the Fort Hood attack and the Christmas day attempt — an American Army major and a Nigerian national — would not have been affected in the slightest by the sweeping provisions offered in your bill.”

This point was reiterated by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, who crowned Barrett one of his “Worst Persons” on his January 12 segment. Pointing out that Major Nidal Hasan was born in Arlington, VA and went to high school in Roanoke, Olbermann said, “I guess, congressman, you need to expand your STEP program to stop aliens from infiltrating our homeland from such nests of terror as Interstate 81 in Virginia.”

The day before Barrett officially re-introduced the STEP Act, NIAC delivered thousands of letters to his office, urging him to reconsider. “Your bill punishes innocent Iranians and implies that ‘stopping terrorists’ means barring them from entering the U.S. to visit family or go to school,” the letters read.

Surprisingly, hours after the letters were delivered, Rep. Barrett’s office said he would get rid of the language that would lead to the deportation of immigrants from Iran and other countries. “Unfortunately, many have been misinformed on the true nature of this legislation,” Barrett claimed in a statement released alongside the bill. “Contrary to some reports, the STEP Act does not contain any language that calls for deportation of citizens from countries identified as state sponsors of terrorism who have already obtained a United States visa and currently reside in the United States … Citizens from these countries who have already obtained a United States visa and currently reside in the United States will not be affected by this legislation.”

NIAC declared this “a major victory,” but warned that the fight is not over. The revised version of the bill still basically criminalizes Iranians and others, banning them from obtaining U.S. visas.

The STEP Act may be a uniquely bad — not to mention far-fetched — example of legislative efforts to install blatantly discriminatory policy into American law books in the name of national security. But the danger it represents, even in its softened version, is hard to overstate. “That people even consider dropping those pieces of legislation is pretty troubling,” Corey Saylor, legislative director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), told AlterNet. At a time when blatant and far-reaching anti-Muslim measures are being enacted in other parts of the world — such as the Swiss ban on minarets or the campaign to ban the hijab in France — new attempts to target Muslims in this country are cause for concern. “I think we’re headed in a very disturbing direction, in which anti-Muslim hysteria is growing, and I think it’s something that we all need to address,” CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told AlterNet.

The issue should be addressed sooner rather than later. Within days of Abdulmutallab’s foiled bomb attempt, the White House announced that citizens of 14 predominantly Muslim countries — Yemen, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, Somalia and Cuba — would now be subject to additional screenings at airport security, a policy that will remain in place “indefinitely.” As with the STEP Act, this effectively criminalizes whole global populations, feeding into the “clash of civilizations” narrative that has fueled so many destructive post-9/11 misadventures. Nawar Shora, the legal director at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, called the 14-country directive “extreme and very dangerous.”

“All of a sudden people are labeled as being related to terrorism just because of the nation they are from,” he told the New York Times.

In a statement released by CAIR, executive director Nihad Awad argued that the policy amounts to racial profiling (a practice candidate Obama vowed to abolish as president). “Under these new guidelines, almost every American Muslim who travels to see family or friends or goes on pilgrimage to Mecca will automatically be singled out for special security checks — that’s profiling.”

Is ‘Homegrown Terrorism’ on the Rise?

Soon after the shooting at Fort Hood, Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing titled “The Fort Hood Attack: A Preliminary Assessment.” Lieberman has been one of the most vocal members of Congress stressing the threat of “homegrown terrorism,” which, by his definition, takes the form of radicalized Muslims within the U.S.

Lieberman was one of the first to call the shooting at Fort Hood an act of terrorism. “We don’t know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act,” Lieberman said in an interview on Fox News on November 11.

Whether to label Hasan a “terrorist” versus a violent criminal may sound like a semantic debate, but the policy implications are very real. As with the recent heated debate over the fate of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab — conservative commentators insist he deserves no right to due process, and a group of U.S. Senators are peddling a bill that would require civilian officials to consult with intelligence authorities when taking an alleged terrorist into custody — what is at stake is the question of whether, ultimately, we could see a different, undemocratic set of legal standards for Muslims who commit violent crimes. By the logic of today’s right-wingers, the Beltway snipers could potentially have been labeled terrorists and tried before a military commission rather than the ordinary criminal justice system. (Although, given that John Allen Muhammad was executed late last year, it’s hard to imagine that a military trial would have led to a tougher sentence.)

Of course, there is some truth to the “homegrown terrorist” meme. Lieberman’s hearing took place just before news broke that five young men from Northern Virginia, ages 18 to 24, had been arrested as part of a terrorist probe in Pakistan, allegedly attempting to help plan jihadist attacks against their own country. Earlier last year came the news that young Muslim American men from Minnesota have been radicalized into traveling to Somalia to join the Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militant group Al Shabab. These stories have led to numerous media reports with headlines like “Homegrown Terror on the Rise.”

Meanwhile, on the home front, the case of Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, a convert to Islam who shot and killed two military recruiters in Little Rock, Arkansas last year, took a turn for the bizarre when the 24-year-old changed his plea from “not guilty”to “guilty” in a letter to his presiding judge in which he claimed to have connections to al-Qaeda. According to MSNBC, “Muhammad also called himself in the letter a member of Abu Basir’s Army,” a reference to the alias of Naser Abdel Karim al-Wahishi, the Yemeni group’s leader.

“This was a jihad: attack on infidel forces,” Muhammed wrote. His lawyer was skeptical. “He’s said lots of things. None of them seem to be real consistent with each other.”

Nonetheless, these cases have lent themselves to an easily woven narrative, in which terror cells are being planted all over the country, with dastardly plots in the works.

“There’s definitely a rise in jihad recruits and volunteers in the United States, whether they’re concerning plots here in the U.S. or whether they involve material support to terror plots overseas,” Steve Emerson, author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, told Fox News in December.

At least one recent study suggests that the homegrown Islamic terrorist narrative is overblown. In a report funded by the U.S. Department of Justice and published this month, North Carolina-based researchers David Schanzer, Charles Kurzman and Ebrahim Moosa write: “In the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001, and subsequent terrorist attacks elsewhere around the world, a key counterterrorism concern is the possible radicalization of Muslims living in the United States. Yet, the record over the past eight years contains relatively few examples of Muslim-Americans that have radicalized and turned toward violent extremism.”

While the report found relatively low numbers of radicalized Muslim-Americans, it discovered an “increased Anti-Muslim bias.”

“Muslim-Americans perceive a stronger anti-Muslim bias from both their day-to-day interactions and the media, a bias that is confirmed in public opinion polling. While Muslim-Americans understand and support the need for enhanced security and counterterrorism initiatives, they believe that some of these efforts are discriminatory, and they are angered that innocent Muslim-Americans bear the brunt of the impact of these policies.”

“Muslim-American communities and law enforcement agencies,” the authors concluded, “must make efforts to cooperate more closely to overcome mutual suspicions and achieve common goals.”

Unfortunately, law enforcement’s ties to Muslim communities remain strained. Last year the FBI officially severed ties with CAIR over allegations that the group had ties to Hamas, an ironic decision given the fact that, most recently, it was CAIR who brought the recent case of the five would-be terrorists from Northern Virginia to the attention of the FBI.

Writing about Lieberman’s November hearing, author Chip Berlet called it “an example of flawed, biased, or discredited scholarship being used in a zealous propaganda campaign that will do little to enhance public safety and much to expand bigotry against Muslims in the United States.” Berlet continued:

The main thesis of Lieberman’s renegade Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is that there is a looming threat of “homegrown terrorism” by domestic “Jihadists.” To use the tragic shootings at Fort Hood to further promote this biased propaganda as part of an ongoing political campaign is grotesque.

At issue is the validity of the concept of “Leaderless Jihad” and the idea that “extremist ideology” somehow has created squads of anti-American terrorists lurking in domestic Muslim communities where “Leaderless Resistance” cells and “lone wolfs” are even now plotting acts of “Jihadist” violence — just like the right-wing domestic terrorists in the 1980s and 1990′s which culminated in the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building in April 1995.

Sounds scary.

The Oklahoma City bombing, however, was not the act of a “lone wolf,” and while it involved a clandestine terror cell, it was not an example of “Leaderless Resistance.” In fact, there is no evidence that “Leaderless Resistance” was adopted as a successful terror strategy by the ultra-right in the 1980s and 1990′s, which undermines the whole concept of “Leaderless Jihad” being peddled by Lieberman.

Nevertheless, Lieberman and committee ranking minority leader Susan Collins have long been pushing this theme. In May 2008 they released a controversial report titled “Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat” warning that “the threat of homegrown terrorism is on the rise, aided by the Internet’s capacity to spread the core recruitment and training message of violent Islamist terrorist groups.” Lieberman subsequently went after YouTube in an attempt to get videos taken down that he considered to be spreading a dangerous message. Some 80 videos were removed from the site.

Among the critics of Lieberman’s targeting of YouTube was the New York Times editorial page:

While it is fortunate that Mr. Lieberman does not have the power to tell YouTube that it must remove videos, it is profoundly disturbing that an influential senator would even consider telling a media company to shut down constitutionally protected speech. The American Civil Liberties Union has warned that the “Homegrown Terrorism” bill and related efforts “could be a precursor to proposals to censor and regulate speech on the Internet.”

Bigots On Capitol Hill

Beyond Congressional hearings that push the “homegrown Islamic terrorist” narrative — or even repressive pieces of legislation like the STEP Act — CAIR’s Corey Saylor says the alliances formed by members of Congress like Barrett with members of the anti-Muslim right are far more dangerous.

“It’s less the legislation and more the legitimacy that’s offered to some of the anti-Muslim bigots by members of Congress,” he says.

One example Saylor cites is Rep. Paul Broun, a Republican member of the House from Georgia. Broun recently invited a man named David Yerushalmi to testify at a hearing on Capitol Hill. “Yerushalmi belongs to an organization that once called for adherence to Islam to be punishable by 20 years in prison,” says Saylor.

Yerushalmi is the president and founder of the Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), which, in addition to seeking to criminalize Islam, has statements on its Web site such as: “There is a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote.”

“This man has the right to free speech, he has the right to believe what he believes,” says Saylor. “But he gets legitimized because someone like Paul Broun invites him to Capitol Hill and gives him a platform … That allows him to go out and push his hate speech.”

Two days before Christmas, CAIR sent a letter to President Obama, urging him to address what it described as a “rise in Anti-Islam hate, Islamophobic incidents, and rhetoric targeting ordinary American Muslims.” Among these incidents was “an attack on a Sikh youth in Texas who was mistaken for a Muslim,” “a Colorado sheriff who called the U.S. Marines ‘Travel agents to Allah,’” and “a spate of vandalism incidents at mosques nationwide.” It also listed a disturbing number of anti-Muslim incidents among supporters of and aspiring elected officials, as well as elected officials themselves.

Most memorable, perhaps, was the attempt last year by right-wing members of Congress to convince the public that CAIR itself was engaged in a sinister conspiracy to infiltrate and take over Congress, by dispatching interns to Capitol Hill. Last October, U.S. Representatives Sue Myrick, R-South Carolina, was joined by Rep. Broun as well as Arizona Republicans John Shadegg and Trent Franks in issuing a call for a federal investigation into CAIR’s attempts to place interns in the Committees on the Judiciary, Intelligence and Homeland Security. The accusation was inspired by a book titled Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America, written by Dave Gaubatz, an anti-Islamic activist who posed as an intern for CAIR in an attempt to prove that the group is trying to infiltrate Congress. (Rep. Myrick wrote the introduction to the book.)

The backlash against Myrick and her co-conspirators was swift. “These charges smack of an America of sixty years ago where lists of ‘un-American’ agitators were identified,”wrote Reps. Michael Honda, D-CA, Barbara Lee, D-CA and Nydia Velazquez, D-NY in a letter on behalf of the Congressional Tri-Caucus, and signed by 87 members of Congress.

“The idea that we should investigate Muslim interns as spies is a blow to the very principle of religious freedom that our founding fathers cherished so dearly. If anything, we should be encouraging all Americans to engage in the U.S. political process; to take part in, and to contribute to, the great democratic experiment that is America.”

The Obama administration didn’t have much to say about the Muslim-intern conspiracy theory, perhaps making the strategic decision to simply let the rumor die. But the White House did not respond, either, to CAIR’s December letter asking Obama to address the trend toward anti-Muslim sentiment.

“I don’t know why they don’t respond,” CAIR executive director Ibrahim Hooper told AlterNet, “but all we can do is ask.”

While Myrick and her supporters — whom Hooper refers to as “the usual suspects” peddling anti-Muslim bigotry — have not really been taken seriously outside the right-wing blogosphere, they have had some effect. “I think they’ve made the whole administration rather skittish about associating in any way with Muslims or Islam,” Hooper says. (Certainly, the ugly fear-mongering and lies that sought to portray Obama as a “secret Muslim” were on full display even before his election.)

Corey Saylor says that although the Muslim-intern conspiracy theory pushed by Myrick has mostly gone away, it’s not dead. “They’ve been working on sort of retooling their message and it’s slowly starting to crop back up again,” he says. In Myrick’s case, this means repositioning herself as an ally of moderate Muslims.

“We’re trying to work with mainstream Muslims and help give them a voice and hear where people stand and help them think about the issues,” she recently told the Charlotte Observer.

Saylor says Myrick is simply trying to insulate herself from further accusations that she is prejudiced against Muslims. “Keep in mind,” he says, “she’s the one whose on the record as saying [after 9/11] that we need to take a look at who’s running our convenience stores.”

According to the Observer, “Myrick met with Jibril Hough, spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte, shortly after the Fort Hood shooting to address what Hough said were inflammatory remarks by Myrick to local media about Islam.”

“A part of me thinks that she means well, but that doesn’t mean her message is well-meaning,” Hough told the Observer, noting that she has softened her rhetoric. “She’s being more careful.”

The man says he was educating people about “Islam” but what he seems to be doing was provoking Muslims and trying to upset community relations. (via. Chasing Evil)

Anti-Muslim Images Bring a Fine

Setting the stage for a showdown over free speech rights, a resident of Waite Park, Minn., plans to fight St. Cloud officials’ decision to fine him for posting offensive anti-Muslim cartoons last month.

The city attorney’s office last week cited Sidney Allen Elyea, 41, with violating a city ordinance that prohibits posting written materials on utility poles.

Elyea has admitted posting the cartoons, telling police he did so to educate city residents about Islam, said his attorney, Ryan Garry.

The cartoons, discovered Dec. 8, depicted images such as the Prophet Mohammed engaged in bestiality and sodomy, as well as an Islamic crescent with a swastika inside it. They were posted in front of a mosque and a Somali-owned store.

The city’s complaint states that the cartoons “were placed in high-pedestrian traffic areas and were placed to target local Muslim citizens. The posters were designed to harass, and they had that effect.”

Although some local residents pushed for Elyea to face criminal charges, prosecutors in Stearns and Benton counties declined to do so, saying the cartoons had to be considered free speech.

Garry agreed with Stearns County Attorney Janelle Kendall’s description of the case as “classic First Amendment” issue.

Garry said the city’s ordinance is overly broad, too vague and amounts to “discriminatory enforcement.”

In an e-mail, Garry wrote, “the government is not punishing my client for posting a piece of paper to a telephone pole, but rather punishing him for offering an opinion on a religious and political issue that they disapprove of and find offensive.”

He added: “I am not defending the content of my client’s political and religious speech. However, the government should know that I will vigorously fight this case to the end to defend his right to say it.”

The two civil charges filed against Elyea carry a maximum fine of $250.

Bob von Sternberg • 673-7184Also read: St.Cloud to serve charges against Waite Park man for Cartoons

Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira

Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira has been arrested for allegedly firebombing a mosque.  Rabbi Shapira published a book entitled The King’s Torah in which he claimed that it was permissible under Jewish law for a Jew to kill a non-Jewish civilian (including a child). He also advocated the expulsion or genocide of all male Palestinians above the age of thirteen.

One month ago, CNN reported:

Jerusalem (CNN) — Israeli police were questioning a relative of the late Jewish extremist Rabbi Meir Kahane in its probe of a Palestinian mosque firebombing in the West Bank earlier this month.

Today, BBC News reports:

Rabbi arrested, suspected in West Bank mosque arson

Israeli police have arrested a rabbi on suspicion of involvement in an arson attack on a mosque last month.

Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, the head of a Jewish seminary in the settlement of Yitzhar, was arrested after he refused to co-operate, police said.

Mr Shapira denies any involvement in the attack, his lawyer was quoted in the Israeli media as saying.

Attackers burned the mosque’s carpet and a shelf of Qurans, and wrote slogans in Hebrew on the floor.

Police arrested some students from the seminary, the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva earlier this month, saying they wanted to investigate whether they were involved in the mosque attack.

Security sources said Rabbi Shapira was “suspected of involvement in an attempt to set fire to a mosque”.

Rabbi Shapira’s lawyer told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahranot that his client “denies any connection to the event”.

He was not co-operating with his investigators “in light of the Israel police’s conduct and their treatment of rabbis recently,” he said.

Rabbi Shapira published a controversial book last year which includes discussion of interpretations of the circumstances under which Jewish law permits Jews to kill non-Jews.

There have been protests by seminary students and a right-wing member of the Knesset outside the police station where he is being held.

The article then talks about extremist Jews who are threatening to attack Palestinians unless the Israeli government acts in a certain way:

Some hard-line settlers say they will attack Palestinians in retaliation for any Israeli government measure they see as threatening Jewish settlements.

It is a policy they call the “price tag”.

All Jewish settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

The price tag for the settlements?  Palestinian blood.  (Sorry, VISA or Mastercard not accepted.)  The goal is to make it too costly to restrict illegal Jewish settlements.  That’s the textbook definition of terrorism:

(n) terrorism: (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

But I thought all terrorists are Muslims?

Europol releases an annual study of terrorism; the results do not support claims that "(nearly) all Muslims are terrorists"

Islamophobes have been popularizing the claim that “not all Muslims are terrorists, but (nearly) all terrorists are Muslims.”  Despite this idea becoming axiomatic in some circles, it is quite simply not factual.  In my previous article entitled “All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t”, I used official FBI records to show that only 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from 1980 to 2005 were carried out by Islamic extremists.  The remaining 94% were from other groups (42% from Latinos, 24% from extreme left wing groups, 7% from extremist Jews, 5% from communists, and 16% from all other groups).

But what about across the pond?  The data gathered by Europol strengthens my argument even further. (hat tip: Koppe)  Europol publishes an annual report entitled EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report.  On their official website, you can access the reports from 2007, 2008, and 2009.  (If anyone can find the reports from earlier than that, please let me know so we can include those as well.)

The results are stark, and prove decisively that not all terrorists are Muslims.  In fact, a whopping 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups; a good 84.8% of attacks were from separatist groups completely unrelated to Islam.  Leftist groups accounted for over sixteen times as much terrorism as radical Islamic groups.  Only a measly 0.4% of terrorist attacks from 2006 to 2008 could be attributed to extremist Muslims.

Here are the official tables provided in the reports…

For 2006:

For 2007:

For 2008:

(According to the report, there was 1 “Islamist attack” in the UK in 2008, which was omitted in the table above.  It has been included in the bar graph below.)

Just glancing at those tables is enough to know how absurd it is to claim that “all terrorists are Muslims.”  That statement is nowhere near the truth.  If we compile the data, it comes out to this:

On p.7, the 2009 Europol report concludes:

Islamist terrorism is still perceived as being the biggest threat worldwide, despite the fact that the EU only faced one Islamist terrorist attack in 2008.  This bomb attack took place in the UK…Separatist terrorism remains the terrorism area which affects the EU most. This includes Basque separatist terrorism in Spain and France, and Corsican terrorism in France…Past contacts between ETA and the FARC illustrate the fact that also separatist terrorist organizations seek cooperation partners outside the EU on the basis of common interests.  In the UK, dissident Irish republican groups, principally the RIRA and the CIRA, and other paramilitary groups may continue to engage in crime and violence.

Perception is not reality.  Due to the right wing’s influence and propaganda, people mistakenly think that Islamic terrorism is the greatest threat to the Western world.  It is even a commonly held belief that Islamic terrorism poses an existential threat–that the very survival of the Western world is at stake.  Of course, the reality is that there are other groups that engage in terrorism on a much larger scale, yet these terrorist incidents are minimized.  Acts of terrorism committed by Muslims are purposefully sensationalized and focused upon, culminating in the idea that “(nearly) all terrorists are Muslims.”

Terrorism from Islamic extremists is certainly a cause for concern, but it need not be an issue that creates mass hysteria.  Nor should it be allowed to be such a critical issue that we are willing to sacrifice our ideals or civil rights for fear of it.  Neither should we be reduced to a status of absolute sissitude.  We have analyzed data from America and Europe (a good portion of the entire Western world), and the threat from Islamic terrorism is much more minimal than commonly assumed; in the U.S., it accounts for 6% of terrorist attacks, and in Europe not even half of a percent.

It is only through sensationalism and fear mongering that the topic of Islamic terrorism is allowed to be used to demonize a religious community that happens to be a minority in the West.  When confronted by such lunacy, we ought to respond with the facts and the truth.

In a future article, we shall analyze the data for terrorism on the world stage in order to further strengthen our argument…

It seems to be a day of questions, is the veil so threatening that it requires a parliamentary inquiry when only 400 or so wear it in the entire country? Is it so vital an issue as to be the top agenda for Sarkozy and his party when there are other pressing problems facing the country such as the Economy, troops in Afghanistan, and the restive Suburbs? Maybe it is very French to bicker and abuse a minority and waste time when other things are more pressing, but when will the line be drawn as to what is French and what isn’t?

The three stooges

You’re a complete moron if you watch this show, or if anyone you know watches it:

This guy (and his wife) are so unbelievably stupid that it hurts.  Does he (and she) not realize that the Muslim Americans who are upset over this issue are not one and the same as Al-Qaeda or the Taliban? So this “mommy, they started it” routine doesn’t work.  It only works for those who view the world in a binary way, Team Christian vs Team Muslim.

And does something become legitimate to do because Al-Qaeda or the Taliban do it?  Way to take the moral high ground, douchebag.

A far right Swedish businessman by the name of Patrik Brinkmann has contributed €5 million to an anti-Islam party in Germany called the Pro-NRW, a party that is behind the rabidly fascist group Burgerbewegung whose supremacist ideology we exposed and also the SIOE (Stop the Islamization of Europe) campaign.

(Via Islamophobia-Watch)

Swedish far-right businessman Patrik Brinkmann has announced he will pour €5 million into the coffers of Pro NRW, an anti-Islam populist party based in Cologne. In a report to air Sunday night on Germany‘s public broadcaster WDR, Brinkmann says he fears Germany is becoming “too foreign” and that Sharia law will be introduced in the country.

“However, there are no, or very few, politicians who take this seriously,” Brinkmann said. “That’s why I believe that a new right wing (in Germany) can not only succeed, but in five or ten years be as large as the FPÖ in Austria or the SVP in Switzerland,” he added, referring to Austria’s Freedom Party and the Swiss People‘s Party, two far-right groups which have enjoyed a certain amount of electoral success.

The millionaire, who reportedly already has ties to Germany’s extreme-right NPD and DVU parties, will finance a building for Pro NRW to be used as an anti-Islam centre.

Collin McKenzie-Gude of Bethesda, Md

Muhammad Abdul Qasim, a 20-year-old man of Middle Eastern descent, was sentenced to life in prison for a plot to kill President Barack Obama. Qasim fashioned an attack plan inside his second-floor bedroom, where he stored chemicals for a bomb, along with three semiautomatic rifles, two shotguns, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, including armor-piercing rounds.  Police also found assault plans on a computer storage device in the bedroom.

Can you imagine if that had been the story of the day?  The media outlets would become frenetic, the Islamophobes would have a field day, and the right wing in general would be fear mongering about the looming Islamic threat.  The people would be panic stricken, the alert levels would be raised to florescent super red, and pregnant women would miscarry.  Muslims would react by saying “oh no, not another one…”  Fox “News” would begin debating the issue of racial profiling, and Robert Spencer would sign another book deal.

In case you are confused, the above story is fictitious.  The actual story is about a 20 year old non-Muslim man named Collin McKenzie-Gude who was sentenced to five years in prison for plotting to kill the president.  Why, we ask, is there no hullabaloo as there invariably would have been had it been a Muhammad, Ahmad, Abdul Qasim, or some other Arabic sounding name involved?  The sparse media coverage explains why it is that people erroneously think that 90% of terrorists are Muslims, when in fact only about 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil are from Islamic extremists.

The Washington Post reports:

Bethesda man linked to Obama death plot sentenced to 5 years
By Dan Morse
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 20, 2010

A 20-year-old Bethesda man linked to a plot to try to kill Barack Obama was sentenced to 61 months in prison Tuesday by a federal judge who said he had gone well beyond innocent role-playing.

“Nobody was assassinated. Nobody was wounded. Nobody was injured. But you were on the cusp,” U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte told Collin McKenzie-Gude.

The judge technically sentenced McKenzie-Gude on his earlier guilty plea of storing bomb-making chemicals in his bedroom. But other factors came into play. Prosecutors convinced Messitte that McKenzie-Gude deserved additional prison time because he was plotting to kill Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, that he had fashioned an attack plan against another student who was possibly going to sell him untraceable guns, and that he had not accepted responsibility for his actions…

The judge also criticized McKenzie-Gude’s parents for giving their only child too much leeway. Inside his second-floor bedroom, in a house just outside the Capital Beltway, McKenzie-Gude stored the chemicals, three semiautomatic rifles, two shotguns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, including armor-piercing rounds. Police also found assault plans on a computer storage device in the bedroom…

When a twenty year old Christian does something like this, then he’s just an immature child.  When a twenty year old Muslim does something like this, then he’s a diabolical terrorist scum bag.

(hat tip: Umer Sultan)

Russelll Wiseman, Republican mayor of Arlington

We all know how Pamela Geller and company claim(ed) that Barack Obama is/was a Muslim.  Russell Wiseman, the Republican mayor of Arlington, Tennessee, believes not only that President Obama is a Muslim, but that he waged a calculated stealth Jihad against the Charlie Brown Special.  It never ceases to amaze me how such high level Republicans can think such insane stuff.

I know that this is a bit old, but better late than never:

What a loon.

The un-American Senator James Inhofe

The Republican senator from Oklahoma has called for passengers to be “racially and ethnically profiled,” because according to him, “all terrorists [or at least 90% of them] are Muslims.”  Yes, that’s true: all terrorists are Muslims…except of course the 94% that aren’t.

Does the good senator not know the ugly history of racial profiling?  Based on this same logic, white racists justify the racial profiling of blacks.  A white supremacist on the white nationalist website Stormfront.org says:

Blacks looking ghetto in an affluent neighborhood should send up flags. For some reason, I doubt that they are there to do the plumbing, though I am sure they wouldn’t mind relieving you of a few of your more valuable items.

These white nationalists ask, just like Inhofe: “why should my white wife be considered on the same level as a ‘ghetto’ black guy?”

That racist forum is in fact full of calls for a return to racial profiling.  And they justify their belief based on “practicality” just like Inhofe and other loons do.  These white nationalists argue that according to the Department of Justice, blacks are seven times more likely to commit murder than whites:

Racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders
In 2005, homicide victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than the rates for whites.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

…In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites……………..

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

In another thread, they argue that blacks commit fifty times the number of violent crimes as whites.  There are also other points brought forth by such people, such as the fact that one in twenty adult black men are incarcerated.  Or that “more than three times the number of black Americans live in prison as in college dorms.” Or that over 55% of offenders admitted under the age of 18 are black. And on and on…All justifications to legalize racial profiling.

So if you justify profiling on airplanes by arguing that 90% of terrorists are Muslims (which is false anyways), then by that same logic you ought to be OK with profiling blacks, especially those “ghetto blacks” who happen to be walking through the suburb.  Whatever arguments you use to justify profiling of Arabs/Muslims can be used for blacks…What?  You’re not OK with that?  Then why is it OK to do that to Muslims or Arabs?

I am an American, and I oppose these un-American calls to racially and ethnically profile.  I don’t believe in such discrimination, and know that it is prohibited by the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution (that annoying document that right wingers always try to circumvent).  If you don’t believe in the ideals of this country, then kindly leave.  You, Senator Inhofe, are un-American.

And if you want to lament about your wife being pulled aside for extra searching, maybe think about changing the war mongering policy that has been shoved upon us by the right wing.  You can’t really kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims, and not expect there to be a handful of disgruntled Muslims who seek revenge.

I know that people are annoyed by the added costs of airport security.  Well, I have a very low cost solution: the U.S. would save trillions of dollars if it withdrew all troops from foreign lands, and stopped aiding the state of Israel.  (Then put the money into universal health care.)  That would take away the motivations of Islamic extremists.  But I get it: you don’t want to do that…then stop complaining when that policy ends up fueling terrorism.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

God's Law vs the laws of man

Shortly after the Fort Hood Shooting, I published an article entitled Muslim Americans Must Obey U.S. Laws; Major Nidal Hasan Violated Islamic Doctrine, in which I detailed how Islamic doctrine dictates that Muslims  are religiously obligated to obey the laws of the land.  (This is similar to the Jewish concept of dina d’malchuta dina.)  The article generated an interesting discussion, with Islamophobes struggling to prove that Major Nidal Hasan’s treason was sanctioned by the Islamic religion.

An Islamophobe who routinely comments on our site posted the following:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 203:

Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:

The ‘Prophet said, “It is obligatory for one to listen to and obey (the ruler’s orders) unless these orders involve one disobedience (to Allah); but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed, he should not listen to or obey it.”

This hadith, and others similar to it, are used by Islamophobes to call into question the loyalty of Muslim Americans.  Muslims must obey the Sharia over and above the Constitution, they bellow. Yet, what these self-proclaimed defenders of the Western Judeo-Christian tradition fail to mention is that Christians believe in obeying God’s Law (the Christian Sharia) over and above the laws of the land.  If God’s Law and the Constitution were to be in conflict, the Christian would be religiously obligated to follow the former.

Let’s take a gander at some reputable Christian “fatwa sites”…The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry decrees:

[Question:] Shall we obey God’s Law or human law?

[Answer:] …The simple answer is that Christians are to obey human law except where that human law violates God’s Law.  Our supreme duty is to obey God.  Since God tells us to also obey human laws, we should.  But, when they come in conflict, we are to “obey God rather than men.”

GotQuestions.org says (emphasis is mine):

Question: “Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land?”

Answer: …We are to obey the government God places over us…

The next question is “Is there a time when we should intentionally disobey the laws of the land?” The answer to that question may be found in Acts 5:27-29, “Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this Name,’ he said. ‘Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.’ Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men!’” From this, it is clear that as long as the law of the land does not contradict the law of God, we are bound to obey the law of the land. As soon as the law of the land contradicts God’s command, we are to disobey the law of the land and obey God’s law…

And the same site says elsewhere:

God commands us to obey the governmental authorities. The only allowance we have for disobeying the authorities is if they demand that we disobey something God has commanded (Acts 5:29)

And:

Romans 13:1-7 makes it abundantly clear that God expects us to obey the laws of the government. The ONLY exception to this is when a law of the government forces you to disobey a command of God (Acts 5:29).

In fact, the Christian apologist Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)–who is called “the father of modern international law”–writes in his book The Law of War and Peace (as quoted on p.184 of William J Federer’s The Ten Commandments and Their Influence on American Law):

Among all good men one principle at any rate is established beyond controversy, that if the authorities issue any order that is contrary to the law of nature or to the commandments of God, the order should not be carried out. For when the Apostles said the obedience should be rendered to God rather than to men they appealed to an infallible rule of action.

In Judaism as well, there are times when a Jew is obligated to break the laws of the land; Rabbi Israel Schneider writes:

Indeed, there are times when the civil law, in conflict with the halacha [Jewish Law], is not binding.

In fact, this has created problems for the peace process, with some Jews refusing to evacuate the illegal settlements, thereby breaking international law in favor of their interpretation of the Halacha.  The Jerusalem Post writes:

Ex-IDF rabbis: Halacha is above military orders

A group of seven former IDF rabbis, including the former chief rabbis of the air force, the navy and the IDF Educational Division, have declared that in situations where Halacha and military orders clash, Halacha takes precedence.

So this belief, of following God’s commands above man’s, is shared by all three of the Abrahamic faiths.  It is strange then that Islamophobes, the self-proclaimed defenders of the Western Judeo-Christian tradition, only fear monger when it comes to Islamic beliefs.  It is this huge double standard that we have come to expose on our site.

Addendum:

A Muslim is religiously obligated to obey the laws of the land he lives in.  But he is only religiously permitted to live in non-Muslim lands in which he is free to practice his religion.  If the laws of the land would compel him to sin, then the Muslim is commanded to emigrate to another land where this is not the case.  (He is advised to leave the land, but is not permitted to rebel against the authority.)  Muslim Americans feel comfortable living in the United States of America, because of the country’s dedication to maintaining the freedom of worship.  As such, they feel there is no conflict between being an observant Muslim on the one hand and an American citizen on the other.

Muslim Americans are naturally weary of fighting their coreligionists in foreign wars that they feel are illegal and immoral.  However, there is currently no draft, and there has not been one for over thirty years.  (The draft is unconstitutional.)  As such, Muslims are not forced to fight in wars they feel are religiously impermissible, and thus there is no conflict.  At the same time, Muslim Americans feel that they have a very important role to play, building lines of communication and understanding between Muslims and Americans.  Muslim Americans believe in using all legal and peaceful political means at their disposal to bring their country away from war and to the path of peace.

Harrasment

San Francisco man Convicted of Harrasing Muslims

A 47-year-old San Francisco man was convicted Tuesday of four misdemeanor counts related to a September incident in which he harassed members of a local mosque celebrating Ramadan, according to the district attorney’s office.

Gregory Tolbert, also known as Troy Adams, was found guilty of two misdemeanor counts of battery and two misdemeanor counts of interference with the exercise of civil rights for a Sept. 20 encounter with congregants of the Al-Sabeel mosque, the district attorney’s office said.

Tolbert reportedly showed up at a breakfast reception in Victoria Manalo Draves Park in the South of Market District, where members of the mosque were celebrating the end of the Ramadan holiday.

Prosecutors said Tolbert began shouting racial and ethnic slurs at the celebrants and was escorted out of the park, but returned later in the afternoon and “caused a disturbance” in an area designated for women and children.

As members again asked him to leave, Tolbert began cursing and swung his backpack at one man, injuring the man’s hand, and scratched another man on his cheek and neck, prosecutors said.

He continued to shout racial and religious slurs until police arrived and arrested him, prosecutors said.

“The law will come down hard on those who violate the civil rights of others,” District Attorney Kamala Harris said in a statement Tuesday.

“There is no place in a civilized society for behavior that steals the free exercise and enjoyment of any right or privilege guaranteed by the Constitution,” Harris said.Tolbert faces a year in county jail, a $5,000 fine and 400 hours of community service at his sentencing today, according to the district attorney’s office.

Copyright © 2009 by Bay City News, Inc. “… republication, re-transmission or reuse without the express written consent of Bay City News, Inc. is prohibited.

CNN recently published an article entitled Study: Threat of Muslim-American terrorism in U.S. exaggerated; according to a study released by Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “the terrorist threat posed by radicalized Muslim-Americans has been exaggerated.”

Yet, Americans continue to live in mortal fear of radical Islam, a fear propagated and inflamed by right wing Islamophobes.  If one follows the cable news networks, it seems as if all terrorists are Muslims.  It has even become axiomatic in some circles to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” Muslims and their “leftist dhimmi allies” respond feebly, mentioning Waco as the one counter example, unwittingly affirming the belief that “nearly all terrorists are Muslims.”

But perception is not reality.  The data simply does not support such a hasty conclusion.  On the FBI’s official website, there exists a chronological list of all terrorist attacks committed on U.S. soil from the year 1980 all the way to 2005.  That list can be accessed here (scroll down all the way to the bottom).

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

According to this data, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism within the United States than Islamic (7% vs 6%).  These radical Jews committed acts of terrorism in the name of their religion.  These were not terrorists who happened to be Jews; rather, they were extremist Jews who committed acts of terrorism based on their religious passions, just like Al-Qaeda and company.

Yet notice the disparity in media coverage between the two.  It would indeed be very interesting to construct a corresponding pie chart that depicted the level of media coverage of each group.  The reason that Muslim apologists and their “leftist dhimmi allies” cannot recall another non-Islamic act of terrorism other than Waco is due to the fact that the media gives menial (if any) coverage to such events.  If a terrorist attack does not fit the “Islam is the perennial and existential threat of our times” narrative, it is simply not paid much attention to, which in a circuitous manner reinforces and “proves” the preconceived narrative.  It is to such an extent that the average American cannot remember any Jewish or Latino terrorist; why should he when he has never even heard of the Jewish Defense League or the Ejercito Popular Boricua Macheteros?  Surely what he does not know does not exist!

The Islamophobes claim that Islam is intrinsically a terrorist religion.  The proof?  Well, just about every terrorist attack is Islamic, they retort.  Unfortunately for them, that’s not quite true.  More like six percent.  Using their defunct logic, these right wingers ought now to conclude that nearly all acts of terrorism are committed by Latinos (or Jews).  Let them dare say it…they couldn’t; it would be political and social suicide to say such a thing. Most Americans would shut down such talk as bigoted; yet, similar statements continue to be said of Islam, without any repercussions.

The Islamophobes live in a fantasy world where everyone is supposedly too “politically correct” to criticize Islam and Muslims.  Yet, the reality is the exact opposite: you can get away with saying anything against the crescent.  Can you imagine the reaction if I said that Latinos should be profiled because after all they are the ones who commit the most terrorism in the country?  (For the record: I don’t believe in such profiling, because I am–unlike the right wing nutters–a believer in American ideals.)

The moral of the story is that Americans ought to calm down when it comes to Islamic terrorism.  Right wingers always live in mortal fear–or rather, they try to make you feel that way.  In fact, Pamela Geller (the queen of internet Islamophobia) literally said her mission was to “scare the bejeezus outta ya.” Don’t be fooled, and don’t be a wuss.  You don’t live in constant fear of radicalized Latinos (unless you’re Lou Dobbs), even though they commit seven times more acts of terrorism than Muslims in America.  Why then are you wetting yourself over Islamic radicals?  In the words of Cenk Uygur: you’re at a ten when you need to be at a four.  Nobody is saying that Islamic terrorism is not a matter of concern, but it’s grossly exaggerated.

Related Posts:

Europol report: All terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that aren’t

RAND report: Threat of homegrown jihadism exaggerated, Zero U.S. civilians killed since 9/11

Update:

A reader by the name of Dima added:

The FBI Terrorism Report shows…[that] the highest number of terrorist incidents in the U.S. by region (90) took place in Puerto Rico.

Second Update:

An Islamophobe commented on this article, saying that the statistics are flawed because the FBI included small acts such as “stealing rats from a lab” as an act of terrorism.  Of course, this is patently false.  Here is a breakdown of the terrorist attacks by type (the pie chart is from the FBI’s official website and can be accessed here):

Terrorism by Event, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

Ephraim Chantzis

From Richard Silverstein’s Tikun Olam. A portrait of a misguided young American Jewish Settler. Imagine if he had been a young American Muslim there would be hackles raised about “homegrown terrorism.”

Ephraim Khantsis: Portrait of KahanaWannabe American-Jewish Settler Terrorist

Haaretz is reporting that an American born-again Orthodox Jew, Ephraim Khantsis, has received a military order expelling him from the West Bank for six months for expressing solidarity with Jack Teitel and his terrorist acts against Palestinians.  Though he was enrolled in the Machon Meir Yeshiva, he spent most of his time since making aliyah to Israel four months ago at the Kfar Tapuach settlement, a hotbed of Kahanist extremism.  It was there that residents reported him.

With some key help from the intrepid Sol Salbe, I’ve learned quite a bit about our Kahane-wannabe.  He recently graduated from SUNY Stony Brook with a degree in computer science.  He grew up in Bensonhurst, known as a tough  neighborhood filled with Syrian and Russian Jews.

He was profiled back in September in quite an unlikely place, Conde Nast’s Details Magazine, where he made the rather startling confession, even before becoming an Israeli citizen, that he would shoot IDF soldiers who came to remove him from the extremist enclave where he intended to make his home:

…There’s a pledge Khantsis makes, one that it’s also possible to hear from Americans already living in settlements, that might be more troubling to Israeli authorities: If the Israeli military comes to remove him from his new home—and many in Israel believe such an event is likely—he will not leave peacefully.“I would fight against it with all my strength, and I would leave nothing back to try to stop it,” says the slim young man wearing a black yarmulke. He speaks so softly that at times it’s hard to hear him. “If they use violence, then we’re justified doing the same.” Would that include using a gun? “Yes,” he says. Is he absolutely sure that he would use a weapon against Israeli soldiers? “That’s right. I strongly hope it would never come to that,” he says. But “if they’re already shooting us, I’d have no option. I don’t think the right thing to do is turn the other cheek. It’s not a Jewish thing to do.”

The entire story is a real eye-opener as it chronicles other hard-core Hilltop Youth and their forays into violent insurrection against the secular Israeli state.  I got a dark laugh from the thought that the Shin Bet can do some of its best intelligence work by reading glossy American men’s magazines. In this day and age, even wannabe terrorists maintain social networking profiles.  He has a Facebook account, where his political views are listed as “Kach” and religious views are listed as “fundamentalist.”  One thing you have to hand to him: at least he’s honest.  He lists his hometown as “Belgorod Dnestrovskiy, Ukraine.”

I am sorry to say that Khantsis’ Ukrainian origin fits with the fact that many former Soviet Jews came to Israel and America with hardline anti-Communist views which translated into hardline nationalist political views supporting the Likud (in Israel) and parties even farther to the right (like Kach for one).  When Avigdor Lieberman first made aliyah he too made common cause with Kach.

Among the Facebook pages he features are those of Nadia Matar, the Women in Green settler extremist who called for Mahmoud Abbas assassination at a Manhattan synagogue; and Ketzeleh Katz, settler Knesset member featured here in a YouTube video foaming at the mouth against the Israeli TV satire program, Eretz Nehederet; Kahane Tzadak (“Kahane was right”); Mike Huckabee, darling of the settler extremists; and the settler news portal, Arutz Sheva.

He lists his profession as “web designer,” which somehow seems fitting in this age of internet terrorism. He has a Twitter account aptly named, Doom7777.  Seems to have had a fantatical devotion to Gilad Shalit (“Kidnapping, terrorizing, fanatical monsters will not succeed to subdue the Zionist State!”) and his freedom, though he pretty much stopped tweeting once he made aliya.

So this is the cream of American Jewish youth, our latter-day Zionist chalutzim who, like our European grandparents, came to build the land and make it bloom–with settlements, barbed wire, attack dogs, M-16s and hate.  When are we going to wake up and realize this isn’t a Zionist dream, it is a nightmare.  And in order to prevent the nightmare from turning into a cataclysm, we must crack down on this aberrant form of Jewishness and Zionism.  We must destroy these movements and ideas. If neither the Israeli nor American governments takes firmer action they will have only themselves to blame for the consequences.  We have seen what the Jack Teitels can do even with his solo reign of terror.  Imagine what an entire movement of Teitels can do with some ingenuity and intestinal fortitude.  All they have to do is think a little bigger, get someone with the vision of an Osama bin Laden.  That would be all it would take for some real mayhem.

Haaretz notes that this military expulsion order is one of the most severe measures at the disposal of the military authorities in dealing with extremist settlers.  There are currently three such orders in effect against residents of Yitzhar.

The actions taken against Khantsis bring home once again the necessity for the U.S. government to do a better job of monitoring the radical pro-settler movement in this country and the necessity for clamping down on fundraising here on behalf of extremist settlements like Yitzhar and Kfar Tapuach among many others.

For some odd reason Haaretz English omitted Khantsis’ name from its English language report, but not from the Hebrew edition.

Robert Spencer with loon Pamela Geller

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are joining forces (a regular occurrence) and holding an “event” at the  Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) slated for February 19 from 10 am until noon. CPAC is billed as the “preeminent yearly conservative gathering” and will have such worthies as Glenn Beck (who will be the keynote speaker), Andrew Breitbart, John Ashcroft, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santorum and many others. The sponsors include such far right-wing organizations as the David Horowitz Freedom Center, the John Birch Society, Focus on the Family, the Heritage Foundation and others.

I imagine there will be a cadre of undercover liberals and documentarians, the Max Blumenthal’s of the world who will cover all the craziness that we are accustomed to from right-wingers. If he is there, I am sure one of his exposes will be covering the anti-Muslim loonacy sure to be on display at the Geller-Spencer event.

Pamela Geller brought to our attention the event over on her website Atlas Drugs, oh excuse me Atlas Shrugs in which she practically begs for donations because she complains that she is not funded by big right wing groups or persons (just ask your buddy Spencer he gets paid a pretty penny by the David Horowitz Freedom Foundation). We can’t confirm whether Geller gets funded but it is a little hard to believe she doesn’t have her hand deep into the pockets of the right-wing hate racket.

Here is the hilarious post from Pam replete with her usual over the top verbiage and endless hyperbole:

Last year in an unprecedented event at CPAC, Geert Wilders met Joe Sixpack, and it was good.

This year, Atlas does not disappoint. We are ratcheting it up a few notches. Robert Spencer and I are organizing a joint venture to educate, elucidate and scare the bejeezus outta ya. (emphasis added)

Pam sums up in one sentence what her and her friends’ agenda is with regards to “Mooslims” and “Islam,” “to scare the bejeezus outta ya!” Can it be any clearer they are using the buffoons on their site, manipulating them with fear mongering, but don’t expect the zombies who are deluded into following her to budge because it seems they love a good horror show.

THIS IS A NOT A CPAC EVENT – THIS IS A GELLER-SPENCER EVENT.

Jihad: The Political Third Rail
What they’re not telling us about the war on America

It’s Friday, February 19th from 10 am until Noon.

We are still firming our speakers up, but here is a list of the invited:

Wafa Sultan [confirmed]
Doctor, author, “A God Who Hates”

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff [confirmed]
Criminal complaint filed for  “hate speech” under Austrian law
Human Rights Activist

Steve Coughlin [confirmed]
Leading Islamic Specialist at the Pentagon, who was fired by Islamic infiltrators

Simon Deng
Former Slave in Sudan, leading human rights activist against jihad

Lt. Colonel Allen West [confirmed]
Running for Congress, Future Leadership

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer

Invited:

Rifqa Bary [invited]
teenage apostate

Kurt Westergaard [invited]
Danish cartoonist targeted for death by axe-wielding Muslim

The latest assassination attempt on Kurt Westergaard’s life by an axe-wielding Muslim (in his home with his five year old granddaughter present) has thrown an axe a wrench into this …………

Rifqa Bary is a free American. She should be free to speak anywhere she wants. Should she not?

Plan to be at CPAC this year, or at least in DC, and set aside Friday, February 19th from 10 am to noon. I need your help getting it off the ground. I will not be charging for attendance, but it costs.

No one underwrites me. No one. Not a penny.

All of these right wing organizations have donors, big donors, small donors …. and fund raising arms. They are, by their very nature, fund raising machines. Not Atlas.

Huge thanks to BigFurHat for the killer art ………. he’s da best!

If you can contribute, please do (and those who have — G-d bless you).

The woman is after money! Does she have any self-respect at all?

Look at the all stars on the list of confirmed speakers, they include Wafa Sultan (bettter known as Wafa Stalin) who we exposed as a hateful, lying poseur playing off the ignorance of her audience and also an advocate for Nuking Muslims.  There is the Austrian, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff whose claim to fame is that she has been charged with hate speech for saying “Muslims rape children” and believes that Austria’s culture is in danger because of Islam. There is Steve Coughlin who we are supposed to believe was an Islam specialist and was “fired from the Pentagon” by so-called “Islamic infiltrators.” Maybe these infiltrators were also the Islamic congressional interns who were “spying” on America for the world-wide Khaliphate? There is Simon Deng who seems to have taken his horrible experience in the Sudan into an all out crusade against Muslims, and of course there is the Biblical Literalist Allen West, the near court-martialed former lieutenant running for Congress on the platform that Palestine should not exist and that all Palestinians should move to Jordan.

Seems like a swell bunch doesn’t it? Well it doesn’t end there, they also “invited” Fathima Rifqa Bary, the poor girl whose life they have constantly intefered in and labeled as the “apostate.” Throughout the whole saga involving Rifqa Bary it is instructional to note that it is only Pam’s group that have been eager to label her an “apostate,” none of those evil Mooslim organizations, ISNA, CAIR, MPAC, ICNA, MAS, Muslim Advocates, etc. have ever called her “apostate.”

So if you want to get together to see a group of flunkies, bigots, charlatan’s and clowns then don’t miss out on this show February 19th that will “scare the beejuzus outta ya!”

Robert Spencer

A while back FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) came out with an expose on some of the most influential and bigoted Islamophobes in the US. It is a report that well worth the read, and as you can guess Robert Spencer was one of the Islamophobes profiled.

Check it out:

Robert Spencer

According to the American Muslim and former Nixon advisor Robert Crane (TheAmericanMuslim.org, 10/20/07), Robert Spencer is “the principal leader…in the new academic field of Islam-bashing.”

Spencer is the author of several books attacking Islam, including the New York Times bestsellers The Truth About Muhammad, Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion (Regnery, 2006) and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Regnery, 2005). He is the publisher of the “notoriously Islamophobic website” Jihad Watch (Guardian, 2/7/06), a subsidiary of the David Horowitz Freedom Center; a columnist for right-wing outlets like Human Events and WorldNetDaily; and a recurring guest on Glenn Beck’s CNN Headline News show, as well as several Fox News shows.

Though his scholarship has been questioned by Islamic scholars (e.g. Crane, TheAmericanMuslim.org, 10/20/07; Louay M. Safi, Media Monitors Network, 12/29/05; Khaleel Mohammed, FrontPage Magazine, 4/18/05), Spencer serves as an intellectual force in the movement, specializing in one-sided interpretations of the Quran. He has written (cited in Crane, TheAmericanMuslim.org, 10/20/07) of Osama bin Laden’s use of quotes from the Quran:

Of course, the devil can quote scripture for his own purpose, but Osama’s use of these and other passages in his messages is consistent (as we shall see) with traditional understanding of the Quran. When modern-day Jews and Christians read their Bibles, they simply don’t interpret the passages cited as exhorting them to violent actions against unbelievers. This is due to the influence of centuries of interpretative traditions that have moved them away from literalism regarding these passages. But in Islam, there is no comparable interpretative tradition.

Yet Islam does in fact have an interpretive tradition, which Spencer seems bent on ignoring. His New York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam has been faulted (Crane, AmericanMuslim.org, 10/20/07) for promoting a Puffin English-language version of the Quran that contains no explanatory commentary as superior to versions which include “many thousands of footnotes evaluating 14 centuries of interpretative tradition” and “the wealth of classical Islamic scholarship on both the inner and outer meaning of the Quran and on the hadith that reflect this wisdom.”

According to Crane, “Spencer’s readers are carefully steered away from all contact with the Islamic interpretative tradition, which equals or exceeds that of any other religion, because any scholarly knowledge about Islam would expose all his extremist interpretations to ridicule.”

By selectively ignoring inconvenient Islamic texts and commentaries, Spencer concludes that Islam is innately extremist and violent, and

Unfortunately, however, jihad as warfare against non-believers in order to institute “Sharia” worldwide is not propaganda or ignorance, or a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists. Instead, it is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology. (Jihad Watch, 3/3/07).

Of course, a similarly selective reading of the Torah might lead one to conclude that Jews favor killing homosexuals, as well as those who wear garments that mix cotton and wool. Spencer’s methods have prompted even conservatives such as Dinesh D’Souza (who challenged his views on Islam in a C-SPAN debate–3/1/07– and on his blog–AOL News Bloggers, 3/2/07) and Stephen Schwartz (FrontPageMag.com, 10/28/04) to denounce him as one-sided and intolerant.

But those methods have made Spencer a mainstay in the Islamophobia circuit, featured, for example, at Horowitz’s 2007 Islamofascism Awareness events. And they haven’t decreased his popularity in official circles: His website boasts that he has led seminars on Islam and jihad for, among others, the U.S. Central Command, the Department of Homeland Security, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and “the U.S. intelligence community.”

Robert Spencer next to his Perpetual Serf Pamela Geller

Terry Krepel had an excellent piece on Pamela Geller in the Huffington Post, though what is “pretty” about Pamela?

Check it out:

Pamela Geller’s Pretty Hate Machine

Newsmax has had a bad run of late with its columnists.

Longtime writer John L. Perry penned a column advocating a military coup against President Obama; Newsmax removed it after a public outcry, and Perry hasn’t written for Newsmax since. After giving Bernard Kerik a column and spending months trying to rehabilitate his reputation amid corruption allegations, quietly put him aside after he pleaded guilty to several of the charges.

Then Pat Boone, in a Nov. 2 column, described Obama and his administration as “political voracious varmints” who must be dealt with, “figuratively, but in a very real way,” by “tenting” the White House the way one does with a house infested by rodents; Newsmax had to pull that one too, though Boone has continued as a columnist. (WorldNetDaily, meanwhile, does not object to Boone’s eliminationist rhetoric, as the column still resides there.)

So who’s next? We nominate Pamela Geller as the next Newsmax columnist most likely to have a claim quietly retracted.

Pamela Geller

Newsmax officially added Geller as a columnist in August. Her bio claims that at her regular blog, Atlas Shrugs, she is “bringing you the news you will not hear from the mainstream media, covering little-reported events of great import.” But of course, there’s no attention given to the wacky extremist views she holds.Geller — a former associate publisher of the New York Observer formerly married to a New York car dealer that owned a dealership linked not only to an alleged fraud scam but the killing of two police officers (the dealership is listed as partly owned by Geller, who has denied any knowledge of or involvement in the alleged scam) — is rabidly anti-Obama, anti-Islam and pro-birther. She has also had dalliances with European fascists and promoted the far-right British National Party. (Geller doesn’t think these folks are “neofascist,” apparently feeling that their anti-Islamic activism excuses their political leanings.) Geller’s Newsmax columns reflect these views.

Indeed, Geller — who once notoriously published a video blog of herself in a bikini — is one pretty hate machine.

Her very first Newsmax column, on Aug. 4, went deep into birther territory, rehashing discredited and irrelevant conspiracies regarding Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Geller spent a needlessly large amount of space on the case of Jay McKinnon, who in July 2008 posted what he claimed to be Obama’s birth certificate on the Daily Kos website that, according to Geller, “even to the layman’s eye, it was obvious that the Kos COLB had been altered.” Geller touted how the Israel Insider website broke the news that McKinnon “implicated himself in the production of palpably fake Hawaii birth certificate images.”

Missing from Geller’s account is McKinnon’s side of the story. In an interview posted on Daily Kos, McKinnon said that he posted the fake certificate to serve as a magnet for conspiracy theorists (like Geller). McKinnon also discussed Israel Insider, a right-wing, anti-Obama blog with ties to WorldNetDaily’s similarly right-wing, anti-Obama reporter Aaron Klein:

Opendna: Reuven Koret, publisher of Isreal Insider, has written that you admitted to forgery.

Jay McKinnon: Reuven Koret wrote me a number of emails before he published his article. Using a kind of Good Cop/Bad Cop style he alternatively offered to keep my statements off the record, and threatened to report me to DHS and CSIS and reveal my identity before an audience larger than DailyKos. When I asked for his questions, he sent me five which required that I both admit to a crime and suggested I implicate other innocent people (including Markos Moulitsas and unidentified members of the Obama Campaign staff) in a conspiracy. I regarded his overtures as a form of journalistic blackmail, in which I either told him what he wanted to hear or he would libel me on his website.

I informed him that I believed his article was based on libel and provided him with this statement: “I believe there is overwhelming evidence that Senator Obama is a natural born US Citizen, and I have no evidence to contradict that belief.”

Evidently that wasn’t what he wanted to hear because a few days he published his article omitting that quote.

Opendna: What do you think of Reuven Koret?

Jay McKinnon: He appears to write under his own name and is skillful at his craft: smearing his ideological opponents. I would not call him a journalist, investigative or otherwise. An internet pundit, maybe. Probably just a blogger who thinks writing scurrilous things about Senator Obama is good for site traffic.

Geller then went on to claim that the birth certificate posted on Obama’s campaign website is a “horrible forgery,” according to the analysis of “Techdude.”Geller summarized “Techdude’s” credentials:

He is an active member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, the American College of Forensic Examiners, the International Society of Forensic Computer Examiners, the International Information Systems Forensics Association — the list goes on.

He is also board certified as a forensic computer examiner, a certificated legal investigator, and a licensed private investigator. He has been performing computer based forensic investigations since 1993 (although back then it did not even have a formal name yet) and he has performed countless investigations since then.

Only, not so much. Not only has “Techdude’s” analysis of the birth certificate been discredited, his credentials have been called into question as well.

Geller also referenced other baseless Obama conspiracies, such as “the passport on which he traveled to Pakistan in 1981.” Surprisingly, though, she dismissed the Kenyan birth certificate that WorldNetDaily desperately wanted to believe was real as an “obvious forgery.”

Geller then complained about the “veritable birth certificate circus” for distracting right-wingers, blaming not ringleaders like herself for this situation but … Obama:

Let’s not cloud the issue. Obama’s COLB was altered. He should produce the vault copy. Then the opposition can get on with the business of stopping his destruction of the economy and his weakening of American hegemony as he pursues his disastrous foreign policy.

Geller doesn’t seem to comprehend the possibility that the “circus” could easily end when circus clowns like herself choose to stop telling lies.

When a report surfaced in October purporting to describe a college thesis Obama wrote, Geller was among the right-wingers to promote it at her blog — at least, until it was proven to be a fraud. Writing about it in her Oct. 27 Newsmax column, Geller not only embraces the fake-but-accurate defense — that Obama could have plausibly written it — but also invents a way to blame Obama for the whole thing:

If Barack Obama would release his Columbia thesis, this latest media pseudo-controversy would never have happened. But now the tittering hyenas on the left are howling at the moon over the satire of Obama’s thesis that was taken for the real thing by Rush Limbaugh, as well as by Denis Keohane at The American Thinker and Michael Ledeen at Pajamas Media.

The fake thesis has Obama criticizing the Constitution, saying that “the so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.”

That sounded to me like something Obama would have said, so I cited it and ran it with it at my blog AtlasShrugs.com. But when I couldn’t find the actual link to what purported to be the “first ten pages” of Obama’s thesis, I took it down.

But bear in mind one thing: as Michael Ledeen says, “it worked because it’s plausible.”

Funny how the same defense right-wingers hated when CBS employed it in the case of the Bush National Guard papers is embraced by them when they’re caught repeating bogus information.

Geller went on to falsely portray Obama’s statements in a 2001 radio interview in order to fit her preconceived script that Obama wants to redistribute the nation’s wealth:

He said that it was a tragedy that the Constitution wasn’t radically reinterpreted to force redistribution of the wealth: “I am not optimistic,” he said, “about bringing about redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.” He praised the civil rights movement and its “litigation strategy in the court” for succeeding in vesting “formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples.”

In fact, as ConWebWatch documented when other right-wingers did the same thing, Obama never claimed it was a “tragedy that the Constitution wasn’t radically reinterpreted to force redistribution of the wealth.” What Obama called a tragedy was the civil rights movement’s reliance on the court system to bring about change instead of grassroots work.

Geller went on to write:

This was the fault of the Supreme Court and the Constitution itself: “But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical.”

And that was because of the constraints of the Constitution: “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

“It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.”

That’s a false interpretation as well. Obama never expressed a desire for the court to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution” during that interview, as Geller claimed; he was merely pointing out that it didn’t.

Sometimes Geller just explodes with visceral hatred for Obama, as she did in a Nov. 17 column on the decision to try suspected terrorist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in a civilian court instead of a military court:

President Obama is dropping another O-bomb on America with the decision to try the masterminds of the shocking attack of Sept. 11, 2001, in a New York courtroom.

That’s right: Obama is trying to reduce the Sept. 11 act of war to a law enforcement issue. So our wartime enemy is going to face a civilian trial in New York City. It’s another O-bomb on American leadership.

[...]

America going on a witch hunt and prosecuting those who kept this country safe from people like Khalid Shiekh Mohammed, as Obama has announced he intends to do, sets back our moral authority. America turning her back on the jihad against women, Christian, Jews, and non-believers has set back America’s moral authority. America electing a radical for a President has set back America’s moral authority.

America electing an America-hater for president vanquished our moral authority.

[...]

This is yet another vile chapter in the Obama presidency. As long as he is president, the man will never stop punishing America for being so foolish as to elect him.

Geller hates Obama as much as she hates Islam. Here’s one of her anti-Muslim rants, from a Nov. 12 column:

We are witnessing an Islamized America. This is well beyond political correctness. We are enforcing Shariah. We will not insult Islam. That is Shariah. We self censor. That is Shariah. We disrespect ourselves, our nation, so that we might respect Islam. This is dhimmitude.

[...]

Every “Soldier of Allah” who goes jihad is an enemy combatant. Every devout Muslim who believes in the word of the Quran has his duty to Islam, her call to jihad. Hence this terrible act of war, the 14,363 Islamic attacks across the world since 9/11, and all of the relentless plots and plans to take down America in the past month alone. Devout Muslims should be prohibited from military service. Would Patton have recruited Nazis into his army?

One of Geller’s biggest cause celebres in her Newsmax column is Fathima Rifqa Bary, an Ohio teen who fled to a Florida pastor claiming her parents want to kill her for converting from Islam to Christianity. But Geller took a one-sided view of the Bary case, ignoring exculpatory evidence.

In an Aug. 13 column, Geller hyperbolically asserted: “Rifqa’s testimony is a plea to the free world to stand for its values and its principles. How far we have fallen when a young woman is pleading to be free in the land of the free, home of the brave. Rifqa Bary’s life hangs in the balance. The West should do everything in its power to save her.”But the full facts of the case diverge greatly from what Geller wrote. As Christianity Today reported, Bary’s story is being promoted by the pastor who whom she fled, Blake Lorenz, whom the girl found through Facebook, and the parents are telling a much different story:

The attorney representing Bary’s mother told Orlando-based 10TV News that they were “allowing [Bary] to explore her Christianity,” and that Bary wasn’t fearful until she met Pastor Lorenz, who holds Bary tightly throughout the video.

Meanwhile, Sgt. Jerry Cupp with the Columbus missing persons bureau disputes Bary’s claims, telling The Columbus Dispatch that Mohamed Bary has known about his daughter’s conversion for months and appears to be caring. And today, the attorney for Bary’s parents issued a statement that they have never threatened Bary: “If this case is perceived as a clash of religions, it is because Mr. Lorenz recklessly and without authorization put someone else’s child in front of television cameras to publicly renounce her previous faith,” McCarthy said in the statement. “The parents who love Rifqa are in the best position now to protect her from the mess that Mr. Lorenz has made.”

Further, as religious blogger Richard Bartholomew points out, the pastor to whom Bary fled, Blake Lorenz, “believes that he receives special personal messages from God about the imminent end of the world,” which raises questions about whether he’s exploiting Bary to promote his own ministry.

Christianity Today concluded:

Of course, believers can rejoice that this teenager has come to Christ in a cultural context in which it would be difficult to betray her parents’ teaching. And if Bary’s claims are true, we can also hope that her legal case is handled fairly and wisely, and that she finds support from Christian mentors and friends. But none of this requires that Christians be quick to use Bary’s claims to prove that Muslims — in this case, her parents and mosque leaders — are intent on killing Bary because their beliefs make them inherently violent.

That last point is exactly what Geller appears to want to push by ignoring the full story. indeed, Geller used an Aug. 17 column to defend Lorenz via misdirection: She doesn’t deny the accusation, asserting instead that Islam, “the group that silently approves of the murder of a daughter who shames her family by not wearing the proper head dress … or by choosing another religion (like Rifqa Bary),” is the real cult and not “the group that offers sanctuary to a poor threatened girl.”

Geller didn’t note that the claim of receiving personal messages directly from God is arguably de facto evidence of a cult leader, nor did she mention that Ohio police have said that Bary’s parents have known about Bary’s conversion for months and “appear to be caring.”In an Aug. 24 column, Geller accused the “media shills and Islamic machinery in the United States” of distorting the Bary case. But of course, Geller was still hurling her own distortions.

Geller’s main target of ire is Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas, whose column pointing the anti-Muslim bias surrounding the Bary case Geller immediately distorted: “Thomas got nothing right. Not one detail. Further, at no point did he consider Rifqa’s testimony. At no point did he consider the consequences of Rifqa’s testimony. At no point did he consider the risk to Rifqa’s life.”

Actually, Thomas got numerous facts correct — facts Geller would rather not have get out, such as pointing out that Bary’s father is “a middle-class jeweler with no documented history of abuse and no record of radical actions or beliefs” and noting pictures of Bary in a cheerleader outfit: “Somehow I can’t imagine a Muslim extremist allowing his daughter to wear short skirts and shake pompoms in front of a crowd of infidels.”

Geller responded to that last point with the nonsequitur: “Thomas knows nothing of honor killings in the West.”

Geller went on to complain: “The media reported only the parents’ Islamist narrative — giving Rifqa’s story no air time or ink. They repeated the lies over and over again.” But Geller does not know that the parents are lying, or that Rifqa is telling the truth. (Nor do we, for that matter.) Yet Geller has already made up her mind to promote her anti-Islam agenda, which of courses he denies she’s doing, insisting instead that “there was an anti-Christian bias. The mainstream media vilified the good Christians who provided sanctuary to Rifqa, who sought only to escape her father’s threat to kill her.” Again, Geller failed to mention the cult-like tendencies of the “good Christians who provided sanctuary to Rifqa.”

Further contradicting herself, Geller concludes with an anti-Islamic rant:

Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Geert Wilders: these truth tellers live under 24-hour guard because of Islamic death threats, which they received because they spoke the truth about Islam. Rifqa Bary has committed a far worse crime from the Islamic perspective: the crime of apostasy. Her testimony is far more dangerous to the stealth jihadists in America.

Rifqa Bary is the highest value target in America. She should be under 24-hour guard. And she should be given a fair shake in the media.

And she’s accusing other people of distorting the case?

Similarly, Geller’s Sept. 14 Newsmax column is one long screed against Newsweek for doing what Geller won’t — tell both sides of the Rifqa Bary story. Geller complained that the Newsweek stated that “Muslim scholars say that in Islam, there’s no such thing as an honor killing for apostasy,” asserting that “Newsweek was conflating two distinct Islamic practices: honor killing and the killing of apostates.” She didn’t mention that it appears that Bary herself is the one conflating the two, as news reports featuring references to “honor killings” indicate. As Richard Bartholomew noted in August:

The girl gives a rather strange interpretation of what an “honour killing” is for; rather than being the remedy for a perceived dishonour suffered by a family, she tells the journalist that to kill her would be an especially ”great honour” because she is the the first Christian in her family for “150 generations” and it would show her family’s love for Allah (Lorenz concurs with a “yes” at 5:03). This seems to me to be a garbled “Christianized” understanding of the phenomenon, making it into something like a human sacrifice.

Geller went on to complain that Newsweek described a “33-page memorandum that Rifqa’s attorney, John Stemberger, filed about the Noor Islamic Center’s connection with Islamic terrorists and radical elements” as being filled with “innuendo and provocative allegations.” In fact, Newsweek supports its claims:

Among them: that the center is connected to an FBI terror probe (which the FBI denies) and that its CEO has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood (which, along with every other allegation, the Noor Center denies). The mosque is actually regarded as mainstream and regularly hosts interfaith events.

Geller’s sole source for contradicting the Newsweek article is “Jamal Jivanjee, Rifqa’s friend and confidante.” But Geller offered no independent confirmation of these claims; Jivanjee is clearly too close to the situation to be an objective source of information. Yet Geller treated his claims as incontrovertible truth.

Why is Geller so afraid of the other side being told? That she is so intent on trying to discredit an article that commits the apostasy (as far as Geller is concerned) of telling both sides of the story belies a certain insecurity about the side of the story she’s on.

Geller again declares of Rifqa: “As a high-profile apostate, she is Islamists’ highest value target right now.” If she’s “high-profile,” it’s anti-Muslim activists like Geller that made her one. Which means she’s partially culpable for any harm that comes Rifqa’s way.

Geller’s Dec. 2 column purported to be outraged that Bary — who by this time had been returned to Ohio and placed in foster care — is “in imminent danger of being returned to her family” and is being “deprived of access to the phone and Internet as well as “pastoral guidance,” adding, “Convicts, murderers, rapists, and pedophiles all have access to ‘pastoral guidance.’” Given that the pastor to whom Bary fled believes that he receives special personal messages from God about the imminent end of the world, a lack of “pastoral guidance” is probably a good thing. Of course, Geller is silent about the pastor’s beliefs.

Geller also repeated unsupported claims of hostile Muslims, alluding to “powerful and influential Islamic supremacists” and “myriad busts for jihad activity in recent weeks.” She also again treated “close friend and fellow ex-Muslim” Jamal Jivanjee as a credible source, even though he’s clearly too close to the case to be objective. Indeed, Geller quoted Jivanjee aping her: “If you are incarcerated in an American prison today, you have the right to have a visit from a pastor. Rifqa Bary does not have this most basic right that most criminals have today.”

Geller summed up by claiming that Bary is “isolated, alone, and in danger of being returned to Islamic jihadists who believe apostates from Islam should be killed. What has happened to America?”

The facts, however, are different than what Geller suggests. As the Columbus Dispatch has reported, no credible threats to Bary have been found by authorities in either Florida or Ohio, and Ohio officials are attempting to work out a solution between Bary and her family. A caseworker wrote that there are “severe differences between the parents’ and Rifqa’s perceptions of what has occurred.”

Putting fearmongering before the truth, however, is what Geller does. And that — coupled with her hyperbolic attacks — makes Geller the odds-on favorite to be the next Newsmax columnist to write something her publisher will have to walk back or retract.

17 year old Meir David Kahane's Grandfather

From Richard Silverstein’s Tikun Olam.

Kahane Grandson Arrested in Torching Yasuf Mosque

Arutz Sheva, the settler’s news portal, reveals that Meir Kahane’s grandson, Meir David Kahane (which was also his grandfather’s full name), 17, was arrested and is a suspect in the arson attack on a West Bank mosque in the village of Yasuf.  The latter neighbors the radical Israeli settlement of Kfar Tapuach, where the young Kahane lives.  Both his grandfather and parents were murdered by Arab militants in separate incidents.

The Israeli police refused to name the suspect, though the Jerusalem Post identified him as a Kahane “relative.”  But Arutz Sheva seems less bound by such pledges of privacy and revealed the boy’s identity.

I should also remind readers that this is the same Kfar Tapuach where Kahane-wannabe Jewish terrorist, Ephraim Khantsis, was hanging out for the past four months telling anyone within earshot that Jack Teitel, another Israeli-American terrorist on trial for several acts of murder and maiming, was a good Jewish boy and the Palis only got what they deserved, etc., etc.  The IDF recently issued an order expelling Khantsis from the West Bank for six months.

Eden Natan Zenda, another Israeli Jewish terrorist who shot up an Israeli Arab bus and killed four, also lived in Kfar Tapuach after deserting from the IDF.  That place is a regular font of brotherly love.

Can we anticipate even bigger and better acts of hatred from the Kahane clan in the future?  Perhaps graduating from arson to murder to avenge their own parents’ murders?  Where will it all end?

H/t to Eileen Read.

Geert Wilders

It seems like Geert Wilders racism and anti-Muslim discourse is going to catch up with him, but don’t hold your breath.

This article is from the Morroco Post and is littered with a lot of grammatical mistakes but it is informative:

By Rachid Chelouah\ Cambridge \ England
The most popular Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders asked judges today 13 January 2010 during his first meeting at court for mitigation to reduce the penalty regarding his accusation of Islamophobia.

The far-right Dutch politician who is known for his hate for Muslims and Islam and who was once denied entry to the British territory   at London – Heathrow airport by the immigration officials because of his racist views towards the Islamic religion, asked judges to drop or reduce charges against him since his racist discourse is met with freedom of speech right.

The suspect is facing charges because of hate crime based on his intolerance and insulting Muslims as a group which makes of his trail very serious with few chances to be discharged or acquitted within the course of justice.

At Amsterdam District Court, Wilders tried to politicize his trial saying that the session was “the first day of a political trial” in an attempt to associate   his trail to political agenda of his party in a way to avoid or win the public support

The most popular politician in Netherland built his Freedom Party movement on anti-immigrant and anti-Islam principals while calling for banning the Quran in the Netherlands and deny entry to any immigrant to the country as well as taxing clothing commonly worn by Muslims, such as headscarves, because they “pollute” the Dutch landscape.

In retrospect to the year 2008, Geert Wilders linked Quran verses with terrorism and violence in his 17 minutes in length film “Fitna” . The MP Geert Wilders has been extended to include inciting hatred against Moroccans and non-Western immigrants

If found guilty Wilders could face a maximum sentence of two years in prison, though a fine of up to euro18, 500 ($26,800) can apply.

Goel Ratzon

Goel Ratzon is an Israeli with some heterodox beliefs, his actions are clearly outside of mainstream Judaism, but imagine if he had been from a Muslim country what would the media reaction be? Of course we know how Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller would react they would say this is “normative” Islam, but of course we won’t hear a peep out of them on this story.

Israeli living with 17 women arrested for enslavement and rape

A Tel Aviv man who has been living with 17 women with whom he fathered 38 children was arrested on Monday on suspicion of enslavement, rape, extortion by threat and sexual assault of minors, among other charges, police said after a gag order was lifted on the case.

Police launched an undercover investigation into the suspect, Goel Ratzon, in June 2009 after receiving a complaint about abuse from one of his “wives.”

Ratzon, 60, allegedly subjected his family to strict disciplinary measures, but has claimed that the women and children lived with him on their own accord.

Click here to read Goel Ratzon’s ‘rulebook’

More than a year ago, Channel 10 aired a documentary on Ratzon and his many wives, which gained widespread attention and criticism after he said that there had been several attempts at collective suicide after some of the women thought he was going to leave them. Also in the film, some of the women said they would commit mass suicide if anyone tried to harm their leader.

Wary of mass suicide, police were accompanied to his home by social workers and psychologists on Monday so as to avoid hysteria and any attempts at mass suicide after his arrest.

Police confiscated a rule book by which Ratzon forced his family to abide. The women were forbidden to communicate with men, be in physical contact with their biological family, eat meat, smoke, drink alcohol or dress immodestly.

Ratzon is considered by his companions to be the savior (Goel in Hebrew) of the universe, and is attributed godly and supernatural abilities. Many of the women have tattooed his name and portrait to several parts of their bodies.

The names of every one of Ratzon’s children include his own first name. For instance, one of his sons is called Avinu Ha-Goel (our father the savior) and he has a daughter named Tehilat Ha-Goel (glory of the savior).

Pat Robertson

The earthquake in Haiti and its tragic aftermath has been consuming the airwaves and media at large with many rushing to aid Haiti in this time of dire need. Then there are those who are using this situation to mock Haiti and claim that this is just retribution.

In what can only be termed as a racist apology for colonialism and imperialism Pat Robertson essentially stated that the Haitians didn’t fight for their independence and freedom but instead “swore a pact with the devil” in which they would “serve him” if he gets rid of the French. This sounds like the narrative the defeated French would create to explain how they lost their colony to “blacks” and to soothe their hurt honor.

Some crazy comments by ill informed and ignorant people about Islam and a proposed Mosque that will be built in their neighborhood.

Some Residents in Sheepshead Bay Fear Planned Mosque

Racial and religious tensions are flaring in Sheepshead Bay over plans to build a mosque on a residential street.

Opponents say the mosque will lead to traffic and noise problems – but their complaints are littered with anti-Islamic attacks, like one letter to elected officials that said “mosques and Muslim schools preach hatred.”

“There’s a safety issue here. I don’t want my kids walking past it,” said Kathy Cash, 38, a mother of three children who attend Public School 52 around the corner on E. 29th St. “It’s disgusting,” said Cash, “they [Muslims] have no respect.”

“My children are scared and I am too,” said Victor Benari, 56, trying to rally neighbors against the mosque during a civic group meeting on Monday. “This is a security issue.”

The hysterical language startled officials from the mosque, who say their neighbors have no reason to worry.

“It saddens us very much to see our neighbors already agitated about these things,” said Allowey Ahmed, 60, who owns the property and is spearheading the project.

“Our neighbors are very important. We cannot be good Muslims unless we have good relations with our neighbors,” said the native of Yemen who moved to Sheepshead Bay in 1997.

Besides the prayer hall, the project will include a community center with youth programs for the growing number of Arabic-speaking families in Sheepshead Bay.

It would be affiliated with the Muslim American Society, a national organization, which runs another facility in Bath Beach.

Other opponents distanced themselves from the hateful language some of their neighbors used.

“I don’t agree with how they presented us. I don’t have a problem with it being a mosque,” said Grigory Kalman, 54, a computer programmer who lives on E. 28th St.

Still, he’s fighting the project because he says it will be noisy and make traffic chaotic on the block.

“This is a quiet residential street, but who knows how bad it will become,” said Kalman.

To calm fears, Ahmed said the Muslim center will not broadcast the daily call to prayer heard at other mosques five times a day.

“We are keen to not disturb the neighbors,” he said.

Councilman Lew Fidler (D-Sheepshead Bay) denounced the stereotyping by the project’s foes.

“I understand they’re uncomfortable. Our emotions are so high and our concerns for safety are so real,” Fidler said, “but to suggest that any mosque that is going to be built is a haven for terrorism or a pulpit for hate before they even build the foundation is simply just over the top.”

Construction is currently stalled because the city Buildings Department rejected plans for a 4-story structure in August, but Ahmed said work would begin “in a couple of months.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2010/01/08/2010-01-08_some_in_nabe_fear_planned_mosque.html#ixzz0cKdGt5SR

Raymond Ibrahim

Raymond Ibrahim is a friend of Robert Spencer and used to be a regular contributor to JihadWatch, he was one of the many who took advantage of the “Islamophobic cash cow” that took off after 9/11 and overnight transformed from “research librarian” into “Islamic scholar” and “Middle East Expert.”

InFocus did a great piece back in 2007 exposing Ibrahim for what he is: a faker.

The Islamophobic Cash Cow

By Salaam Abdul Khaliq

OK, so you’re a failed writer who toiled for years to achieve fame, fortune and immortality. You’ve spent years in obscurity struggling to pay the bills and keep your head above water, hoping for the day you would eventually earn the attention of some big publisher.

But, sadly for you, all your efforts went by the wayside.

The good news is there is hope. There is just one thing left to do, one thing that would guarantee fame, fortune, a publishing contract and a lot of free media bonanza.

Would you like to know the secret that escaped hundreds of other failed writers like you – academics, journalists, the poor and huddled masses that had bad luck striking gold in the land of opportunity?

OK, here it is - and you need to sit down for this - it’s called “The Islamophobia cash cow.”

Post 9/11, the fastest and surest way to gain celebrity status in the West and garner respect and attention you would otherwise never achieve on your own mediocre merit is to go on an “Islam-bashing” campaign.

And, mind you, you don’t need to be an expert on the subject matter, just make sure to quote verses from the Qur’an out of context, cite Osama Bin Laden as the role model of Muslim behavior, bank on tired canaries like “Islam oppresses women,” and “Islam was spread by the sword,” and other washed out cliches, and voila!

You’re a celebrity, a famous author (a rich, famous author, mind you), a Good Samaritan defending the civilized world from the evils of Islam.

Meet Raymond Ibrahim, the latest client of the “Islamophobia cash cow industry.”

Ibrahim was recently a guest of Air Talk, hosted by Larry Mantle on the Pasadena-based NPR affiliate KPCC. Ibrahim had his 15 minutes at last.

An unknown and obscure menial research librarian at the Library of Congress, Ibrahim thrust himself into the limelight by writing a book called “The Al Qaeda Reader,” (published in 12/06). The newly Christened crusader finally broke down the doors of rejection and abject obscurity and made it to the pantheon of famous “Islam experts.”

And you wonder how many other poor research librarians have risen out of nothingness to sudden fame in a matter of weeks?

Not to worry, Ibrahim has now shown them the fastest path to sleazy righteousness.

Write something that bashes Islam and your “research librarian” title will suddenly transform into “historian of the Middle East and Islam” and “scholar and writer on the Middle East and Islam,” and many other promiscuous titles that have as much worth as fortune cookie sayings.

Then one wonders why a respected talk show host like Mantle would cede the podium to an Islamophobe like Ibrahim without balance, without bringing someone like Karen Armstrong. for example, to challenge his twisted and warped views.

Instead, Mantle let Ibrahim run amuck quoting verses from the Quran ad hoc and out of context, saying for instance that the verse “there is no compulsion in religion” was reprobated, meaning canceled out, by verses of war in what is known as “naskh.”

Ibrahim was given free reign to unabashedly spew lethargic tirades with impunity, shamelessly proclaiming that if Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, were alive today, he would do what Bin Laden is doing now.

Ibrahim also implied that American Muslims presented a danger to American society because their faith teaches them to kill their enemies wherever they are and by all means necessary.

Such alarmism and incitement to hate and paranoia are simply unacceptable, especially coming from an NPR affiliate station that prides itself in being liberal and inclusive.

It is unconscionable for a respected talk show host like Mantle to hand over the microphone to a petty, anti-Muslim research librarian to freely bash Islam and up the ante on American Muslims in order to hype his anti-Islam-disguised-as-a-critique-of-Al-Qaeda book for material gain.

Just like his fellow Arab American Islam-bashers Wafa Sultan and Nonie Darwish, Ibrahim ought to take notice that Arabs and Muslims have always been in the same boat.

Most Americans don’t make the difference. You are whom you bash.

Many icons of Islamophobia before Ibrahim who sought to make a quick buck by viciously maligning Islam and Muslims sold their souls and ended up as dejects, discarded and washed out has-beens with no credibility and no respect.

It won’t be long before the wisdom of “Islamophobia, like crime, does not pay” will catch on. Media outlets and talk show hosts should take notice.

After this piece was published, Raymond revealed that he faced heat from his employers eventually leading to his “resignation”:

after this Islamist op-ed was published, I received much heat from my supervisors at the Library of Congress, partially culminating in my recent resignation from that American bibliotech — another institution that goes out of its way to appease, especially where Saudi money and princes are concerned.

It was good to see the Library of Congress take a stand against rabid anti-Muslims like Raymond Ibrahim. Notice also how he does what Islamophobes do best, resort to conspiracy theories and blaming it on those “influential” Saudis.

No, Raymond those who employed you at the Library of Congress weren’t “appeasers” or “dhmmis” beholden to the world wide influence of the Saudis, they just got fed up with your hate. Kudos to them.

Mohammad Asadujjaman

Do you think this story is one that Robert Spencer would mention on his site? This seems to be the Greater Jihad, fighting the temptations of the self to do something right.

Ed Koch

You might remember Ed Koch as the mayor of New York or as the judge on People’s Court but now he seems to be a not so wise pundit on Fox News.

‘Hundreds of Millions’ of Muslims are Terrorists

Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City, told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto on Thursday that “hundreds of millions” of Muslims are terrorists.

Taking up the now-standard conservative political talking point, in the wake of the Christmas Day bombing attempt, that political correctness prevents the US from identifying Muslim terrorists as such, Koch said:

We’re afraid of calling them Muslim, Islamist terrorists. We’ll call them anything but. Because we don’t want to alienate Muslim countries. That’s ridiculous. Of course the vast majority of Muslims — there are a billion, four hundred million — are not terrorists, but there are hundreds of millions who are. They want to kill every Christian, every Jew, every Hindu who won’t convert. And we ought to put it on the table.

Host Neil Cavuto did not attempt to correct or even question Koch’s claim.

Joshua Holland at AlertNet gives Koch “the benefit of the doubt” and assumes Koch meant to say “hundreds of thousands” of Muslim terrorists. Even so, Holland argues, that suggests Muslim terrorists aren’t doing their job very well.

“Given that there were a total of around 9,000 fatalities worldwide resulting from Islamic terrorism in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available), those hundreds of thousands must have been pretty damn incompetent,” he quips.

Koch was a Democratic member of Congress in the 1960s and 1970s, and was the Democratic mayor of New York for much of the 1980s. But in recent years he has taken to endorsing Republican candidates, including endorsing George W. Bush for president in 2004, although he endorsed Barack Obama in the general election in 2008. In his interview with Cavuto, Koch said he would fire National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter over the Christmas Day bomb attempt.

The following video was broadcast on Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto, January 7, 2010, and uploaded to YouTube by user therightscoop.

There is a eye widening new documentary out called “Waiting for Armageddon” which explores the Faith and ideology that close to 50 million Americans hold dear to their hearts and which also has a tremendous effect on the foreign and domestic policy of the United States.

Waiting for Armageddon

By RONNIE SCHEIB

Doggedly nonjudgmental docu “Waiting for Armageddon” delves into the faith of some 50 million Americans (including more than one president), exposing the central role of Israel in end-of-days scenarios, their impact on the volatile situation in the Middle East, and the confluence of national policy with biblical prophecy. From interviews with families awaiting the imminent arrival of the Rapture to evangelical tours of Israel, where Texans reverently sing “The Star-Spangled Banner” over the Sea of Galilee, the pic explores beliefs as pervasive as they are largely unexamined. “Waiting,” which bowed Jan. 8 at Gotham’s Cinema Village, could spark strong urban response.

Filmmakers Kate Davis, Franco Sacchi and David Heilbroner structure their docu around the four stages of the apocalypse, each headed by numbered scriptural placards: 1) the Rapture, when, in a microsecond, all true believers, living and dead, will be transported into the clouds with Jesus; 2) the Tribulation, during which untold horrendous catastrophes, ecological and man-made, will rain down upon those haplessly “left behind”; 3) Armageddon, when Christ will return with a sword to judge the sinners and the blood will gush as “high as a horse’s bridle,” to quote one comely software engineer, and 4) the Millennium, encompassing the 1,000-year reign of heaven on earth reserved for Christ and his followers (along with 144,000 converted Jews).

Within this general framework, the filmmakers capture adherents calmly discussing “future history” at church, around the dinner table, at “Pre-Trib” conventions, at Christian telethons raising millions for Israel, and, especially, on junkets to the Holy Land.

The unlikely alliance between Christian evangelicals and right-wing Israelis is predicated on their shared conviction that Jerusalem must remain entirely in Jewish hands. The pic’s representative of the Israeli wing of this coalition is a sneer-afflicted rabbi (dismissing Jesus as a second-rate skirt-chaser), in charge of rebuilding the temple supposedly predestined to supplant the Muslim Dome of the Rock. In the words of a savvy political researcher, one of the pic’s few dissenting voices, the evangelicals “want the Muslims to be evicted by the Jews, the Jews to rebuild the temple of Solon and then Christ to return and trump everybody.”

Waiting” sometimes plays like Bill Maher’s “Religulous,” minus Maher’s snarky mediating p.o.v. In their zeal to not misrepresent evangelicals, the filmmakers tend to record every discussion in mind-numbing C-SPAN-like detail and, more problematically, sometimes unintentionally wind up enabling an evangelical agenda; a shot of men praying in a mosque inadvertently reads as an example of “Islamofascist” behavior.

Still, the docu’s open-endedness offers something for everyone. For believers, it provides a sympathetic portrait of sane, educated families coping with what they perceive as the suffering of the world. For Jews, it sounds a wake-up call to the dangers of supporting a faction that counts as necessary an Israeli future of wholesale destruction and a choice between conversion or death. Lastly, for unrepentantly cynical secularists, it serves up delicious ironies (one “saved” Christian’s barely disguised glee at the prospect of a front-row seat for the upcoming carnage).

Camera (color, HD), Sacchi, Davis; music, Gary Lionelli; sound, Heilbroner, Roberta Dougan, Rich Cutler. Reviewed on DVD, New York, Jan. 2, 2010. (In 2009 New York Jewish Film Festival.) Running time: 74 MIN.

There is a new report that came out last week that was put together by David Shanzer of Duke University, Charles Kurzman of North Carolina University and Ebrahim Moosa of Duke University, titled Anti-Terror Lessons of Muslim-Americans. It is an excellent report and a must read, that amongst other things finds that a majority of Muslims who commit terrorist acts have very little Islamic knowledge,

This study identified 139 Muslim-Americans with a linkage to terrorist violence between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2009, an average of about 17 people per year. The dataset contains information about both the offenders and the nature of their activity. All but one of the offenders are men. Their average age is 28. Almost two-thirds (65%) are under 30.

This research confirmed what has been observed in other studies of Muslim terrorists: most of those who engage in religiously inspired terrorism have little formal training in Islam and, in fact, are poorly educated about Islam. Muslim- Americans with a strong, traditional religious training are far less likely to radicalize than those whose knowledge of Islam is incomplete.

This puts a dent in the theories expounded by Islamophobes such as Spencer and company.

Also read this: Study: Threat of Muslim-American Terrorism is Exaggerated

As many of you may well know, I am writing a rebuttal of Robert Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).  In chapter five of his Islamophobook, Spencer discusses the issue of Sharia and rape.  I have completed part 1 of my rebuttal, which can be found here.  As I was ferociously typing up part 2, it dawned on me that my audience may be unfamiliar with the Quranic verses in question, making it difficult for some of them to properly grasp the issue–or of fully understanding part 2 of my rebuttal.

Hence, I have decided to publish this article as a sort of background piece to part 2 of my rebuttal.  As such, it will not be–like my other articles–a direct refutation of Robert Spencer.  However, I believe that this article will serve a two-fold purpose.  First, it will, as I have discussed, provide the background necessary to properly understand part 2 of my rebuttal.  Second, it will clear up misconceptions about Islam…misconceptions that Islamophobes use as a big stick to whack Muslims over the head with.

Many people erroneously think that all mainstream interpretations of Islam necessarily criminalize zinnah (fornication and adultery)–fornicators are to be lashed and adulterers stoned, no questions asked.  Such a fundamentalist mentality clashes with the Western concept of freedom of choice; it is for this reason that Islamophobes argue that religious Muslims are intrinsically incompatible with Western values.  However, it is important to recognize the multiplicity of Islamic understandings that exist today; I will categorize the various interpretations of the anti-zinnah laws into fundamentalist, conservative, and reformist views.  Clearly, fundamentalist understandings ought not to be tolerated, but I would argue that reformist views (and perhaps conservative ones) are not completely incompatible with Western ideals…at least not any less so than Judaic and Christian views.

Background

According to the Law of Moses, as followed by the early Jewish community, the death penalty was meted out to adulterers; the Old Testament reads:

The adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus, 20:10)

In order to be found guilty of adultery, there had to be two witnesses of good character who testified against the adulterers:

At the testimony of two or three witnesses they must be executed. They cannot be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. (Deuteronomy, 17:6)

Jewish rabbis dealt with this seemingly harsh law by purposefully making it difficult for the “prosecution” to meet the required burden of proof to secure a conviction.  They argued, for instance, that both witnesses must have (1) warned the adulterers of the graveness of their sin prior to the commission of the act, and (2) that they must have witnessed the actual act itself.  Naturally, these restrictions made the enforcement of this penalty a rare event.

Muslims believe in something called “progressive revelation”: accordingly, God revealed the Old Testament to the Jews, then the New Testament to the Christians, and lastly the “Final Testament” (the Quran) to the Muslims.  As such, there is–according to Islamic belief–a divine continuity in religious belief between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; Islamic law (Sharia) is based in the Law of Moses, a continuation and “perfection” of it.

According to Islamic tradition, God–out of mercy for the people–softened the harsh Law: the Sharia al-Islam (Law of Islam) is and ought to be, they argue, an “easy law” that is milder than the Sharia al-Yahud (Law of the Jews). The Islamic texts, for example, narrate that some Jews approached the Prophet Muhammad for rulings, saying: “Let us go to this prophet, for he has been sent with an easy law.” ^[1] (The authenticity of the quote is irrelevant, as it is here being used only to illustrate the Muslim perception of their own law.) Consequently, reason the Muslims, God made the evidentiary requirement for the harsh anti-zinnah laws even more unattainable: the burden of proof was raised from two to four witnesses.  In this manner, the people were saved from severe punishments.

The doubling of the witnesses, from two to four, took place at a time when women were often accused of fornication, adultery, and harlotry.  Even if a woman could not be convicted of this charge, her reputation (and life) would be ruined.  To prevent this occurrence, the Quran stipulated that not only had the burden of proof been raised to four witnesses, but if a man dared accuse a woman of sexual immorality with anything less than that, he would be punished for slander:

And those who accuse chaste women [of fornication or adultery] and then do not produce four witnesses–lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient. (Quran, 24:4-5)

The Prophet Muhammad gave details about this verse, seemingly affirming the restrictions placed by the Jewish rabbis, namely that the four witnesses (1) had to be of good character and (2) had to have actually witnessed the act of penetration; as Imam Mawsili and other jurists worded it, the witnesses must see the penis enter the vagina like the “Kohl needle entering the Kohl bottle.” ^[2]

According to Islamic doctrine, Muslims of good character must not gaze on the private parts of others; as such, the two conditions placed by the Prophet Muhammad seem to negate each other.  If after all the four witnesses had gazed on the private parts, then they could not possibly be considered of good character; why did they not avert their gaze?  Why did they not warn the sinners to cease and desist from their sin?  The burden of proof for zinnah thus became “near impossible” to meet, and in this manner, men were restrained from throwing around accusations of sexual immorality against women, for fear of being lashed for slander.

Fundamentalist Interpretation

Fundamentalist Muslims do not take into consideration mitigating texts.  Instead, they see that a verse in the Quran seems to advocate punishment for zinnah (fornication and adultery), and they rush to judgment, lashing and stoning on whim.  Contrary to popular misconception, fundamentalists usually lack rigorous religious education; at most, they may have attended substandard madrasahs (religious schools), but in general they are ignorant of the vast jurisprudential tradition of Islam.  Most importantly, they do not engage in contextual and inter-textual analytical exegesis of the Quran.  Reformist (and even conservative) Muslims argue that fundamentalists flout the very Quran that they claim to be following: by not assiduously adhering to the high evidentiary requirement prescribed by Islamic law, the fundamentalists have created a persecuting state–where citizens live in mortal fear of the heavy handed government.

Conservative Interpretation

Although on principle they agree that the anti-zinnah laws are Islamic, conservative Muslims follow the traditional Islamic view of what I call “religious obstructionism.”  On the one hand classical jurists affirmed the harsh penalties for lashing and stoning, but on the other hand they set up many roadblocks and obstacles to the enforcement of such penalties, making it “near impossible” to enact them.  This obstructionist approach is not unfamiliar, as it finds prominence in the Jewish rabbinical tradition.  Conservative Muslims today have adopted just such an approach, arguing that the four witnesses requirement is theoretically possible but practically improbable.

Conservative Muslims agree with reformist Muslims that the fundamentalists are incorrect in their haphazard and dangerous interpretation of the law. According to the conservative Muslims, the punishments of stoning and lashing would fall into almost complete (if not complete) disuse.  But it should be understood that they would block the enforcement of such penalties on a case-by-case basis, instead of the top-down approach of reformists.  Furthermore, the stoppage would be based not on a principled indignation but on a micro-technical legalistic level.  Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl writes:

Muslim jurists questioned the morality of the death penalty, and also questioned whether the state should be allowed to execute its own citizens.  The way Muslim jurists responded to these challenges was to seek refuge in the technicalities of the law.  In other words, the juristic response was legalistic and profoundly technical.  Working with the micro-details and technicalities of the law, Muslim jurists challenged the discretion of the state and made it difficult for the state to carry out the death penalty, and also made it difficult for the state to claim that it had complied with all the procedural and evidentiary requirements in its application of this ultimate punishment…

The point is that the juristic response was legalistic, technical, and creative.  In light of the decisive and grave consequences of the death sentence, Muslim jurists were not willing to accept it without qualifications, and they seemed to have struggled with its implications and impact.  As often happens in a legalistic interpretive culture [such as the rabbinical tradition], Muslims jurists did not respond at the conceptualized or broad theory level.  While they accepted the death penalty in principle, at the level of the process and implementation, they made the infliction of the death penalty difficult…The moral paradigm that inspired Muslim jurists to endeavor to avoid the death penalty is well represented in an educational message that teachers of Islamic law in the classical age often repeated and emphasized to their students.  The message provided was this…It is always better to save the life of a thousand guilty persons than to unwittingly murder a single innocent person. ^[3]

Similar interpretations abound in the Jewish rabbinical tradition, resulting in what the Jewish Encyclopedia calls “the practical impossibility of convicting any adulteress” ^[4]–a phrase similar to the Islamic “near impossible.”  Conservative Muslims agree that the conviction of adulterers against their will is theoretically but not practically possible.

Reformist Interpretation

Reformist Muslims go one step further, and approach the issue from a more theoretical standpoint.  They focus more on the higher ethical objectives of the Islamic law (maqasid al-Sharia), from which they derive the Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh).  Reformist Muslims argue that the “near impossible” evidentiary requirement indicates that the anti-zinnah laws are meant not as laws of enforcement but of symbolic deterrence.  They believe that the Sharia was designed in such a way as to promote a more detached government with a very limited scope of powers; accordingly, reformists argue that the personal sexual lives of its citizens do not fall under the jurisdiction of the ideal Islamic state.  What goes on in the privacy of one’s own bedroom between two consenting adults by cover of night is not the business of the state.  As the Prophet Muhammad declared:

All of my community will be fine except for those who commit sin openly. Part of committing sin openly is when a man does something at night and God conceals it, but in the morning he says, “O So-and-so, last night I did such and such.” His Lord had covered his sin all night, but in the morning he removed the cover of God. ^[5]

A similar narration exists from the second Caliph of Islam:

A man came to the Prophet and said: “O Apostle of God! I have mingled with a woman in the outskirts of Medina…So, here am I, judge me according to what you decide.”

Umar bin Khattab replied: “God had kept your secret!  Why then didn’t you?” ^[6]

This indicates that the Islamic government’s role is primarily only in matters of the public square, not in the bedrooms of its citizens.  Meddling in the personal affairs of citizenry is both unnecessary and inappropriate.  Islam values the privacy of citizens, and forbids the government from spying on its citizens; it is for this reason that many Muslim Americans strongly believe in the fourth amendment and other such “privacy laws” enshrined in the American legal system.  Certainly, reason these Muslims, a government ought not to meddle in a citizen’s personal sex life.  According to Islam, the privacy of a person’s home must be respected by all others and is inviolable, such that even peeking through windows to see inside is forbidden, even for the Caliph (leader) of the Muslims:

The secrecy of the private life is untouchable.

The Qur’an decisively prohibits spying into and disclosing the secrets and private lives of people, and orders keeping secret any detect and sinful act which one has seen in a person: O you believe! Avoid much suspicion, for some suspicion is a grave sin (liable to God’s punishment); and do not spy (on one another) (Qur’an 49:12). Neither can a Muslim government spy on people to see whether they are committing a sin or crime unless there is decisive proof that they are committing something against the public peace. Likewise, spying into homes, opening and reading letters that belong to others, and listening to the conversations of other people are all wrong.

The second caliph of Islam, Umar ibn al-Khattab, was once walking on the streets of Medina, the capital, at night. Suddenly he heard noise coming from one of the houses, a noise indicating that somebody was drunk and singing loudly. Umar climbed over the wall, entered the house, and witnessed a very disappointing situation. He complained of the situation to the man inside, and said, “Did you think that God would allow you to hide this fault of yours?” The man replied, “O Caliph of the Muslims, stop and don’t rush. I committed one sin in the eyes of God; however, you have made three mistakes here. First of all, God says, Do not spy on one another (Qur’an 49:12), but you spied on me. Second, God says, Come to dwellings (in the normal way) by their doors (Qur’an 2:189), but you climbed over my wall, and finally God says, O you who believe! Do not enter dwellings other than your own until you have ascertained the permission of their residents and have greeted them with peace (Qur’an 24:27), but you entered my house without getting my permission and you did not greet me with peace.”

Umar was very upset with himself and replied, “If I forgive you, will you forgive me?” The man said, “Yes.” Then Umar said, “I forgive you,” and left the house. ^[7]

While the reformist Muslims affirm the judicial obstructionism of the conservatives, they bolster it by giving it a principled and conceptual basis.  This top-down understanding then is that private sins are between an individual and God; although such sins carry a heavenly punishment, they are generally not punished in this worldly life.  Of course, God’s heavenly punishment is stricter, which is why believers are commanded to cease and desist from their sins, and to repent sincerely.  “And God is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

What’s the Point?

All of this discussion invariably leads a non-believer to ask: what’s the point of a law and a prescribed punishment if its enforcement is “near impossible”?  Wouldn’t it simply have been easier and more intuitive to have no such law to begin with?  Perhaps.  But the faithful believe that God acts in mysterious ways, the true reasons known only to Him.

Nonetheless, contemporary Muslims speculate that God prescribed a punishment that could not realistically be enforced for four reasons: (1) It is a legacy inherited from the Law of Moses, i.e. Sharia al-Yahud (Law of the Jews).  In other words, the punishment for adultery used to be much easier to carry out and was indeed done so.  This was for the people who came before Ummatul Muhammad (nation of Muhammad); it is understood by Muslims that the Law as prescribed to Bani Israel was decidedly much stricter.  Even Moses implored God to have more mercy on the community of Muhammad, fearful that the strict Law would break their backs.  Therefore, the harsh punishment legislated by the Old Law was made impotent by creating such a high evidentiary burden that it became impossible to fulfill.  Such a belief is consistent with the Islamic doctrine of progressive revelation.

To reiterate, the answer to “wouldn’t it be simpler to not have such a law to begin with?” is that the law was inherited from previous nations.  Muslims believe that the Islamic community was honored by inheriting the Abrahamic law and tradition; therefore, although the Law could be tweaked, it ought not to be abandoned or replaced altogether.  Rather, it was–according to an Islamic understanding–modified and “perfected” with mercy.  The anti-zinnah laws are based then in Abrahamic precedence, and are therefore affirmed but in a merciful and lenient way.  This explains why Muslims do not simply do away with the anti-zinnah laws altogether.  They honor the Abrahamic tradition but without the enforcement of harsh penalties for fornication and adultery, which have become symbolic in nature.

(2) The second reason is that the Sharia is making a moral point by associating in the mind of the believer an extremely harsh punishment with fornication and adultery, thereby making clear the gravity of the sin.  In Islamic quarters it is argued that contemporary society has made both fornication and adultery socially acceptable.  The Islamic law, on the other hand, equates these sins with lashing and death, even if these punishments are not generally enforced.

Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl writes:

Obviously, in Islamic law the crime of fornication or adultery is hard, if not impossible, to prove. So why have the punishment at all? There are two competing values here.

Illicit sexual relations must be condemned. At the same time, people should mind their own business, and spying or slandering cannot be tolerated. The solution was to make the moral point that fornication and adultery are terrible crimes, and only if they could be proven would they be punished severely. Nevertheless, the issue is generally between a person and God. ^[8]

(3) Furthermore, in the largely illiterate societies of the past, it is likely that only the Islamic jurists were cognizant of the “judicial obstructionism” that saves believers from punishment.  As such, the law served as a deterrence, even if it were not in reality enforced.  This is similar to a parent threatening a child with an extremely harsh punishment simply as a scare tactic, knowing full well that he/she would never actually enforce it.  The threatening of punishment is thus a mercy in a way, as it causes a person to correct his/her conduct which will benefit him/her both in this life and the next.

(4) Following the third point, it is understood by contemporary Muslims that the law is one of deterrence, not of enforcement.  As the conservative Islamic scholar Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari writes:

One should always keep in mind the objective and spirit of Shariah concerning the various legal punishments. The idea is not to enforce the punishment and make people suffer; rather the objective is to prevent harm, corruption and immorality in the society. Thus, legal punishments act as deterrents more than actually get people punished…

An example of this which comes to mind is that we see speed cameras being placed on many roads and streets (especially here in the UK!) in order to deter people from speeding in their vehicles. The idea behind these speed cameras is not to catch people speeding, rather to prevent people from speeding and causing accidents. If the aim was to catch people speeding, there would be no warning signs indicating that a camera is present. However, we see that whenever a speed camera is placed, many warnings are given that  beware this road has a speed camera . Many of the times, the camera is not even in operation, hence, the idea is to stop people speeding rather than catch and punish them.

The same is with the various legal punishments prescribed by Shariah, in that they are prescribed to prevent people from committing unlawful actions and corrupting the society, yet the rules and conditions for a legal punishment to be enforced are so stringent that very rarely would an individual be punished. The legal punishment is considered a deterrent, but if an individual did involve him/herself in some unlawful activity, the objective now is not to get the individual punished rather to save him/her from the punishment. ^[9]

The Sharia’s Objective of Averting Corporal Punishments

The punishment of fornicators and adulterers is historically rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition that Muslims follow.  Yet, Muslims believe that the Sharia al-Islam was tweaked in such a way as to lean heavily towards the accused, thereby saving them from corporal punishments.  (This is not unlike the rabbinical tradition, which similarly mitigates the Law.)  In fact, Islamic authorities are commanded to find a “doubt” so that the accused can be acquitted.   Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari quotes the Prophet Muhammad to this effect:

The Imam should try his best to avoid the legal punishment… This (trying to avert a legal punishment) has been explicitly mentioned in one Hadith. Sayyida Aisha narrates that the Messenger of Allah said:

“Keep the Muslims away from punishments as much as possible. If there is any way out for an offender to escape punishment, acquit him. It is better for a judge to make an error in acquittal than in conviction.” (Sunan Tirmidhi, no: 1424) ^[10]

Contemporary Muslims understand the command to find “any way out” to be a duty of the Islamic authorities.

Deterring Witnesses from Coming Forward

When four witnesses come forward, they are warned by the authorities that if their testimonies do not hold up, they will each be lashed eighty times.  This creates a great deterrent to any witnesses coming forward, for they know full well that the authorities will seek to acquit the accused based on any possible doubt.  For example, how is it that they could have gazed on the private parts of two having sexual relations?  Why did they not turn away?  Why did they not warn the sinners?  Why were they spying on the two?  And so on and so forth.

The jurisprudential practice is to “generate” a doubt such that the defendant is acquitted and the accusers punished.  This knowledge deters accusers from stepping forward; rather, they should hide the sin of their fellow believer, as it is of no business of theirs.  The accusers are deterred from coming forward for fear that one of the four of them would rescind his testimony, thereby condemning the rest to lashes.

It is for this reason that there exists in the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad no single case of someone being convicted of fornication or adultery based on the testimony of four witnesses. Reformist (and even conservative) Muslims point to this as a strong proof that the intent of the Sharia was to deter accusers from stepping forward, barring this route to conviction and punishment.

Both reformist and conservative Muslims understand that it is impossible for the witnesses to see the penis clearly inserted into the vagina, because even “if you were among the four thighs you would never be able to give this testimony.”  In other words, not even the thighs of the two who are fornicating can properly witness the vaginal penetration, so how can anyone else do that?  The conservative “Wahhabi” ^[11] cleric Ibn Uthaymeen declared:

[The four witnesses] should describe zina in clear terms, such as saying: “I saw his penis in her vagina”. There is no alternative to that. If they say: “We saw him on top of her and they were naked”, that is not acceptable. Even if they say “We saw him doing with her what a man does with his wife,” that is not sufficient as testimony. They must say “We bear witness that his penis was in her vagina.” And this is very difficult, as the man said who was testified against at the time of ‘Umar: “If you were among the (four) thighs you would never be able to give this testimony.” Hence Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah mentioned that at his time no case of zina was proven by means of testimony from the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) until the time of Ibn Taymiyah. If no case was proven from that time until the other, then we do not know of any case that was proven by testimony up till our own times, because it is very difficult. ^[12]

So it is understood amongst both reformist and conservative Muslims that the “near impossible” requirement of four witnesses has never been fulfilled up until this day.  The ultraconservative site, Islam-qa, says:

This strictness with regard to testimony about zina serves only to achieve the purpose aimed at by sharee’ah, which is to conceal people and not spread immorality, and to make societies avoid accusations against people’s honour and aspersions on their lineages.

Al-Qurtubi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Jaami’ li Ahkaam al-Qur’aan (5/83):

Allaah has stated that testimony in a case of zina must be given by four people, so as to make it hard for those who are testifying to such a thing, and to conceal people. ^[13]

Photographic Images and DNA

It should be noted that conservative and reformist Muslim scholars agree that the four witnesses must have witnessed the actual act itself.  Photographic images or video footage are not admissible, not only because these can be doctored but because such an allowance would eliminate the Sharia’s objective of making the enforcement of these penalties “near impossible.”  This becomes clear by the fact that the jurists of today even forbid DNA proof to convict a person of fornication or adultery; the ultra-conservative Islamic cleric Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid declared that “zinaa…cannot be proven by DNA testing or by use of cameras and videos.” ^[14]

Self-Confession

In place of four witnesses, a person may confess four times to the sin.  Yet this too has many stringent requirements:

The confession must be uncoerced.  From an Islamic legal perspective, confessions under duress are inadmissible.  The authorities are legally obligated to investigate each case and ensure that the confessor was not pressured into coming forward by family or friends.  If there is any doubt whatsoever about this, the confession is to be rejected.

The confessor must be an adult of sane mind who confesses on four different occasions, knowing full well the consequences of such a confession. For example, the fourth Caliph of Islam came upon an insane woman who had confessed to adultery and was about to be stoned; he quickly brought a halt to the punishment and declared:

Do you know that there are three people whose actions are not recorded [against them]: a lunatic till he (or she) is restored to reason, a sleeper until he (or she) awakens, and a boy (or girl) until he (or she) becomes baligh (mature)…Why [then] is it that this woman is being stoned? ^[15]

It should be noted that there is no religious requirement for a Muslim to come forward to confess his/her sin.  In fact, he/she is encouraged to hide it and not reveal it; this is in accordance to the two hadiths which I have already quoted (and other textual proofs as well):

All of my community will be fine except for those who commit sin openly. Part of committing sin openly is when a man does something at night and God conceals it, but in the morning he says, “O So-and-so, last night I did such and such.” His Lord had covered his sin all night, but in the morning he removed the cover of God. ^[16]

And:

A man came to the Prophet and said: “O Apostle of God! I have mingled with a woman in the outskirts of Medina…So, here am I, judge me according to what you decide.”

Umar bin Khattab replied: “God had kept your secret!  Why then didn’t you?” ^[17]

In fact, the Islamic judge is religiously commanded to dissuade the confessor from going through with the confession.  The confessor is encouraged to simply repent from the sin, as “God is Most Forgiving.”  Muslims believe that sins can be expiated simply by prayer and the commission of good deeds. Seeking corporal punishment is not necessary to attain penance; in fact, it is highly discouraged.

In Sahih al-Bukhari (#6439), for example, it is narrated that a man confessed the sin of adultery to the Prophet Muhammad.  However, the latter kept turning his face away from the confessor, wishing not to hear it.  Such was the reluctance of the Prophet Muhammad when it came to enforcing such harsh punishments.  Commenting on this narration, Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari writes:

The above incident shows the importance of trying to avert a legal punishment as much as possible. The man came and confessed to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) that he had committed unlawful sexual intercourse, yet the Messenger of Allah ignored him, in order that he may change his mind. ^[18]

It is narrated that the Prophet Muhammad would turn away from confessors, not wanting to hear what they had to say:

A man of the tribe of Aslam came to the Prophet and testified four times against himself that he had had illicit intercourse with a woman, while all the time the Prophet was turning away from him. ^[19]

In another instance, a man by the name of Maiz ibn Malik confessed to the Prophet Muhammad that he committed zinnah.  The Prophet replied by saying: “Probably you have only kissed, or touched, or looked at her.”  This was the Prophet’s attempt to save the person from punishment, as only vaginal penetration is punishable; anything less than that–including kissing, fondling, masturbation of oneself or of one’s partner, and even anal and oral sex–is not punishable by the hadud (Islamic corporal punishments).

Based on this, the Islamic judge is instructed to dismiss the confession by saying “probably you have only kissed, or touched, or looked at her.” Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari writes:

This famous incident of Ma’iz ibn Malik also gives the same message, in that the Imam (leader) should try his best to avoid the legal punishment. This is the reason why it is recommended to say to the one who confesses committing fornication that “You may only have touched, you may only have kissed, are you sure you had sex, think again properly of what you are saying and think of the consequences of your confession,” and other such things. ^[20]

Reformist Muslims argue that there is as such no room for the hanging judge in Islam; rather, Islamic judges ought to be merciful, generally leaning towards acquittal, at least in cases where the sin is against God and not a fellow human being.  The confessor is encouraged not to confess, or if he has already done so, to rescind his confession.  Maiz confessed to the sin of zinnah and told the Prophet Muhammad: “Purify me,” by which he meant to carry out corporal punishment and thus attain penance.  Yet, the Prophet Muhammad told Maiz not to seek the punishment but instead to simply pray to God for forgiveness; the Prophet said to Maiz:

Woe to you!  Go back and ask God for forgiveness and repent to Him. ^[21]

In fact, it is highly encouraged (mustahhab) in Islam not to self-confess the sin of fornication and adultery, in order that these harsh punishments not be implemented.  When Maiz insisted that he be punished, the Prophet Muhammad told a third person:

If you had covered him with your garment, it would have been better for you. ^[22]

Muslims believe that God covers up a person’s sins in the same way that clothing covers up a person’s nude and embarrassing parts.  Islam instructs believers to utilize this merciful garment of God, and they are thus encouraged not to “reveal what God has concealed.” Thus, the Prophet’s disciples looked down upon self-confession, even saying about the one who confessed to zinnah:

Look at this man whose fault was concealed by God but who would not leave the matter alone, so that he was stoned like a dog. ^[23]

The Prophet’s disciples had a dislike for self-confession, saying:

We, the Companions of the Apostle of God, used to talk mutually: “Would it have been that al-Ghamidiyyah and Maiz ibn Malik had but withdrawn [their confession] after their confession…[we] would not have pursued them (for punishment).” ^[24]

The ultraconservative Saudi scholar Salih al-Munajjid quotes various classical scholars that confirm the view that repentance is better than confession:

Question:

Will the zaani (fornicator) who repents be forgiven even if the hadd punishment is not carried out on him?

I would like to know if a person commits fornication and he truely repents towards Allah would he be forgiven in the hereafter if the hadd of hundred lashes is not carried out on him in this world. Can only repentance expiate him from this sin or unless and untill the hadd is not carried out on him he can never be forgiven and will be punished in the hereafter. Please answer in accordance with Quran and sunnah. I will be very grateful.

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

The carrying out of the hadd punishment for a sin for which that punishment has been prescribed is an expiation for that sin.

Sincere repentance from sin is also an expiation for sin, and “the one who repents from sin is like the one who did not sin.” And Allaah will turn his bad deeds into good deeds.

If he is sincere in his repentance, and prays a great deal for forgiveness, then he does not have to confess so that the hadd punishment may be carried out on him. Rather repentance is sufficient, in sha Allaah.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

And those who invoke not any other ilaah (god) along with Allaah, nor kill such person as Allaah has forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse–and whoever does this shall receive the punishment.

The torment will be doubled to him on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein in disgrace;

Except those who repent and believe…and do righteous deeds; for those, Allaah will change their sins into good deeds, and Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And whosoever repents and does righteous good deeds; then verily, he repents towards Allaah with true repentance.

[al-Furqaan 25:68-71]

…

In Saheeh Muslim (1695) it says that when Maa’iz came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and confessed that he had committed zina and said, “Purify me (i.e., carry out the hadd punishment on me)”, he said to him, “Woe to you, go back and ask Allaah for forgiveness and repent to Him.”

[Imam] Al- Nawawi said:

This hadeeth indicates that the burden of sin is lifted from one who repents from major sins, and this is according to the consensus of the Muslims.

[Imam] Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said:

From this case – i.e. the case of Maa’iz when he confessed zina – it may be understood that it is mustahabb [highly recommended] for the one whose case is similar to repent to Allaah and to conceal himself and not mention his sin to anyone… This was affirmed by al-Shaafa’i who said: I prefer for the one who has committed a sin and been concealed by Allaah to conceal it himself and to repent.

Fath al-Baari, 12/124, 125

And it was narrated from ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Avoid these sins that Allaah has forbidden, but whoever does any of them, let him conceal himself with the concealment of Allaah and repent to Allaah, for whoever tells us of what he has done, we will carry out (the punishment prescribed in) the Book of Allaah on him [and we do not desire that].”

It was also narrated by al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Saheehayn (4/425) and by al-Bayhaqi (8/330); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 149. ^[25]

And he writes elsewhere:

Repentance that is a matter between a person and his Lord is better for him than confessing his sin before a qaadi (judge) so that the hadd punishment may be carried out on him.

In Saheeh Muslim (1695) it is narrated that when Maa’iz came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said, “Purify me,” he said, “Woe to you! Go back and pray to Allaah for forgiveness and repent to Him.”

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said:

It may be understood from this case – the case of Maa’iz when he confessed to having committed zina – that it is mustahabb for the one who falls into a similar sin to repent to Allaah and conceal his sin and not mention it to anyone, as Abu Bakr and ‘Umar said to Maa’iz. Whoever discovers anything of that nature should conceal it according to what we have mentioned; he should not expose it or refer the matter to the ruler, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said in this story: “If you had concealed it with your garment it would have been better for you.” Hence al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “If a person commits a sin and Allaah conceals it for him, I prefer for him to conceal it too and to repent,” and he quoted as evidence the story of Maa’iz with Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.

Fath al-Baari, 12/124, 125 ^[26]

The fatwa site SunniPath.com issued the following religious verdict:

Question:

I committed zina … What should I do? …I know that according to the Shariah, I should face lashings…So what should I do in order to make amends with Allah Ta’ala?

Answer:

In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate

Conceal Your Sin

It is recommended for the one who commits zina to conceal his mistake and not tell anyone about it.  Rather, he or she should turn to Allah in sincere repentance.  It is not necessary or recommended to confess at an Islamic court and face the hadd punishment, and if someone did confess, it would be recommended for them to withdraw their confession and not be punished (Tuhfat al-Muhtaj + Hashiyat  Abd al-Hamid, 9.113).

The Shafi’is have many proofs for their position.  Among them is that when Ma’iz came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and asked him to purify him, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said to him,  “Allah have mercy on you!  Go away and ask Allah’s forgiveness!”   Ma’iz then left but soon returned and asked again to be purified, and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) repeated what he had said.  The same thing then happened a third time, and it was only after the fourth time that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) asked Ma iz some further Questions and ordered him to be punished (related by Muslim + others).  When the hadd punishment was enforced on him, Ma’iz tried to run away but those stoning him chased him down and forcibly enforced the punishment on him.  When the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) heard about this, he disapproved and said,  “Why didn’t you let him go? Perhaps he would have made repentance and Allah would have accepted his repentance.”  (Abu Dawud)  Ibn Hajar notes in his Tuhfa that all of the offers made by the Messenger of Allah and his subsequent disapproval of his companions actions indicate that it is superior for one not to confess to committing zina, and that even if one did, it is recommended to withdraw one s confession.  Otherwise, the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and give him peace) offers would be meaningless (Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 9.113).

Another proof is that it is a sign of Allah’s mercy that He has concealed one’s sin from the sight of others, and the Shari’ah does not approve that one cast off this concealment despite Allah s having given it to one.

al-Khatib al-Shirbini explains in his commentary on the Minhaj:

It is sunna for the one who commits zina and anyone else who commits any act of disobedience to conceal his sin from others.  This is because of the hadith,  “Whoever commits any of these awful sins (qadhurat), let him conceal himself with the concealment of Allah, for verily, whoever exposes his action to us (man abda lana safhatahu), we will impose the hadd punishment upon him.”  (related by Hakim and Bayhaqi with a strong (qawiyy) chain of transmission).  Exposing one’s sin, then, in order to be punished by a hadd punishment or a discretionary punishment (tazir) goes against the recommended way…

Allah Loves to Forgive

Allah Most High told us in the Qur an:

“Say,  O my servants who have wronged themselves: despair not of Allah’s mercy; surely Allah forgives all sins; surely, He is Most Merciful and Compassionate.”   (39:53)

Commentators tell us that this verse is the most hope-inspiring verse in the Quran (arja ayatin fi kitabi llah).  Reading this verse should cause every believer to rejoice.

No matter how great the sin, the door of repentance is always open.  Allah loves to forgive.  The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) told us in a famous hadith that if we did not sin, Allah would create other people who would sin so that He could forgive them.  He also told us that the one who repents from a sin is like the one who has no sin.

May Allah envelop us all with His mercy and forgiveness and gather us together in Paradise. ^[27]

In fact, a Muslim is obligated to think good of God, and know that His Mercy overcomes His retribution.  Therefore, a believer should not only repent from such sins, but feel confident that his/her repentance was accepted by God; failure to do so is a sign of disbelief in God and His Mercy, for God has already said: “O My slaves, you commit sin night and day, and I forgive all sins, so ask Me for forgiveness.” ^[28]

Some people erroneously believe that God will not or cannot forgive some sins, or that that they have sinned so much that the doors of repentance have been closed.  The redemptive Islamic faith, however, rejects such notions as being akin to doubting God’s Mercy.  God says in the Quran:

O My slaves who have transgressed against themselves (by sinning)! Despair not of the Mercy of God, for verily God forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Quran, 39:53-54)

And God says further:

O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and put your hope in Me, I will forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, if your sins were to reach the clouds of the sky, and were you to ask Me for forgiveness, I will forgive you and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, if you were to come to Me with sins nearly the size of the earth…then I would bring you forgiveness… ^[29]

The Prophet Muhammad declared:

The one who repents from his sin is like the one who did not sin in the first place. ^[30]

Not only is the Islamic authority to dissuade the believer from confessing his sins, but he should also leave the opportunity open for the confessor to withdraw his confession, any time before or even during the enactment of the punishment. As Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari writes:

If the confessor takes back his words before the punishment is enforced or during the punishment, he/she will be released and set free. (See: al-Ikhtiyar li talil al-Mukhtar, 2/311-316 and other major Hanafi Fiqh references) ^[31]

In one narration, a man confesses to adultery and insists upon the punishment for himself.  Yet, when the first stone was thrown at him, he reconsidered his ill-fated decision.  The Prophet Muhammad chastised his disciples for not letting the man go at this point:

While [the man] was being stoned he felt the effect of the stones and could not bear it and fled. But Abdullah ibn Unais [chased] him…and killed him. They then went to the Prophet and reported it to him.  [The Prophet] said: “Why did you not leave him alone? Perhaps he might have repented and been forgiven by God.” ^[32]

It seems then that it is preferable to simply seek repentance and forgiveness instead of justice and punishment. The Prophet Muhammad and his disciples discouraged self-confession, arguing that people ought to hide their sins and seek repentance from God alone.

The Call for a Moratorium on Corporal Punishments

Reformist Muslims argue that there would hardly be people today who would seek the punishment upon themselves, especially when they know that religiously it is preferable not do that. The atmosphere of the ideal Islamic state, they reason, should be one of forgiveness, not of persecution.  If the Prophet Muhammad detested punishing people based on their own self-confession, then how misguided are those fundamentalists who are known to drag unwilling women to be stoned against their will?

Many reformist Muslims have responded positively to Dr. Tariq Ramadan’s International Call for Moratorium on Corporal Punishment, Stoning and the Death Penalty in the Islamic World, commonly referred to by the less cumbersome name The Call for a Moratorium.  Ramadan, the leading reformist Muslim scholar of the world, argues that the manner in which various fundamentalists are implementing the hadud (corporal punishments) is so radically incorrect that there ought to be a complete moratorium on all such punishments until stringent and up-to-date standards are set.

In the meantime, Ramadan has called for a dialogue in the Islamic world in order to properly understand the matter, and to stop fundamentalist interpretations from spreading.  Whilst some conservative Muslims have reacted cautiously to Ramadan’s wording, they do agree with him that the fundamentalists are implementing the law in an incorrect fashion.

Fundamentalist Interpretations as a Backlash

Dr. Tariq Ramadan notes that the recent resurgence of fundamentalist interpretations can be traced to a reactionary feeling in the post-colonial Islamic world; enforcing such punishments evokes a negative response in the West, and because many in the Muslim world associate the West with colonialism and “neo-colonialism”, this reaction seems to validate their Islamic identity.  In other words, the logic is: the West is bad, the West does not like these punishments, and therefore these punishments are good.  This has more to do with identity politics than religious theology.  Writes Ramadan:

On the question of hudûd [corporal punishments], one sometimes sees popular support hoping or exacting a literal and immediate application because the latter [supposedly] would guarantee henceforth the “Islamic” character of a society…When one studies this phenomenon, two types of reasoning generally motivate these claims:

1. The literal and immediate application of the hudûd legally and socially provides a visible reference to Islam. The legislation, by its harshness, gives the feeling of fidelity to the Qur’anic injunctions that demands rigorous respect of the text…

2. The opposition and condemnations by the West supplies, paradoxically, the popular feeling of fidelity to the Islamic teachings; a reasoning that is antithetical, simple and simplistic. The intense opposition of the West is sufficient proof of the authentic Islamic character of the literal application of hudûd. Some will persuade themselves by asserting that the West has long since lost its moral references and became so permissive that the harshness of the Islamic penal code which punishes behaviors judged immoral, is by antithesis, the true and only alternative “to Western decadence”.

These formalistic and binary reasoning are fundamentally dangerous for they claim and grant an Islamic quality to a legislation, not in what it promotes, protects and applies justice to, but more so because it sanctions harsh and visible punishment to certain behaviors and in stark contrast and opposition to the Western laws, which are perceived as morally permissive and without a reference to religion[3]. One sees today that communities or Muslim people satisfy themselves with this type of legitimacy to back a government or a party that calls for an application of the sharî’a narrowly understood as a literal and immediate application of corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty. When this type of popular passion takes hold, it is the first sign of a will to respond to various forms of frustration and humiliation by asserting an identity that perceives itself as Islamic (and anti-Western). Such an identity is not based on the comprehension of the objectives of the Islamic teachings (al maqâsid) or the different interpretations and conditions relating to the application of the hudûd…[but rather] a binary reasoning (less West is more Islam). ^[33]

The more the West pushes to remove such laws that are deemed Islamic, the more the people feel threatened by Western domination; they push back harder by calling for even stricter interpretation and implementation.  Such fundamentalist understandings have particular appeal in war-ravaged areas such as Afghanistan and Somalia.  The U.S.’s heavy handed policies in the Islamic world, coupled with a bombardment of traditional Islamic society with Western culture, has created  a reactionary backlash.  Instead of valuing the nuances and richness of Islamic jurisprudence, many Westerners denigrate all of Islam, thereby alienating the very population they are trying to influence.

But there is hope: reformist Muslims are forcing the Islamic world to have the much needed debate.  Even in the ultraconservative country of Saudi Arabia, for example, reformists who challenge the status quo are emerging.  The movement will be gradual in nature, and one cannot simply expect a reformation overnight.  Yet, the process has begun and is gaining momentum.

Pregnancy as a Proof

Pregnancy has been mentioned by some jurists as a proof for fornication in the case of an unmarried woman.  Yet, this requires some elaboration.  The pregnancy alone cannot be used to justify her punishment; the woman can simply deny the act of fornication.  She may for instance have engaged in illicit sexual conduct short of vaginal penetration, which may inadvertently have led to pregnancy. For example, the man could have ejaculated near her thighs and some semen may have entered the vagina that way.  (Remember: the legal punishment only applies to those cases where there is vaginal penetration; if a person confesses to sexual conduct short of vaginal penetration, there is no hadd punishment.)

Furthermore, the woman may have been raped, had sex whilst she was temporarily insane, or been asleep whilst a man ejaculated in her.  These excuses may seem extraordinary, but that’s the point: any doubt whatsoever should be enough to acquit the defendant, which is the goal of the Islamic court.  SunniPath.com, a fatwa site, answers the following question:

Question:

Is pregnancy considered sufficient evidence for the enactment of the hadd punishment for adultery?

Answer:

In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate

No.

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) commanded us in a famous hadith to ward off the hadd punishments with doubts [shubuhat].  Many punishments prescribed by Islamic Law often seem very harsh, but people forget that these punishments are only applied when certain very stringent conditions are met…

It is mentioned in Bughyat al-Mustarshidin that an unmarried woman who gets pregnant and does not confess to have committed fornication [zina] does not deserve the hadd punishment, since she could have been  accidentally had intercourse with  [wat  ul-shubha], she could have been asleep, she could have been insane (and hence not responsible for her actions) when the intercourse happened, or she could have been coerced, all of which are  doubts  [shubuhat] that make the hadd punishment inapplicable to her.  [Bughyat al-Mustarshidin, 249] ^[34]

Salman al-Oudah, a Saudi cleric, posted the following fatwa on his website:

Question: Can a single woman be accused and convicted of fornication on the strength of her falling pregnant?

Answered by Sheikh Sulaymân al-`Îsâ, professor at al-Imâm University in Riyadh

…The woman will not receive punishment just because of pregnancy. Women can fall pregnant without committing illegal sexual intercourse. A woman could be raped or coerced. In this case, she is a victim and not the perpetrator of a crime.

Therefore, she cannot be punished or even accused of misconduct merely on the strength of her falling pregnant. This opinion is held by many people of knowledge. Ibn Qudâmah said in his book al-Mughnî:

If a woman becomes pregnant without having a husband or a master, she may not be punished and, instead, she should be asked about it, if she claimed that she was coerced into it or that she committed adultery under dubious circumstances, or if she simply does not confess adultery then she will not be punished. This is the saying of Abu Hanîfah and al-Shâfi`î, because she may be pregnant as a result of a forceful intercourse or dubious circumstances. Punishment will be abandoned in case suspicion exists. It is well known that a woman could become pregnant without engaging in true intercourse. The woman may become pregnant if sperm is manually inserted into her vagina. This would explain how a virgin becomes pregnant. ^[35]

Although theoretically the punishment could be implemented based on pregnancy, practically it is never so, because there is always an element of doubt which wards off punishment.

Al-Li’an

The fourth (and last) means of a conviction is through the process of li’an.  After the Prophet Muhammad enacted such stringent laws barring men from accusing women of fornication and adultery, some of the husbands complained, asking what to do if they entered the home to find another man in their bed.  Should a husband who catches his wife red-handed be barred from testifying against her simply because he cannot fulfill the “near impossible” four witnesses requirement?  While it may be true that a stranger has no business meddling in the private affairs of a woman, isn’t the husband a special case because he is directly affected by her infidelity?

These concerns were brought to the Prophet Muhammad, and the verses of Al-Li’an were then revealed.  I discussed this in part 1 of my rebuttal:

Both the Quran and the Bible deal with the case of a husband accusing his wife of adultery.  The Quran declares that if a wife denies the charges, then she is exonerated by the law–her testimony is accepted over that of her husband’s, and any worldly punishment is waived.  The Quran declares:

As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves: let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, swearing by God that he is of those who speaks the truth; And the fifth oath should be invoking the curse of God on himself if he is of those who lie. But it shall avert the punishment from her if she bears witness/testifies before God four times that the thing he says is indeed false, and if she takes an oath a fifth time that the wrath of God be upon her if he speaks the truth. (Quran, 24:6-9)

This is the Islamic law of Al-Li’an. The Bible, on the other hand, has the Law of Jealousy: if a husband suspects his wife of adultery, then he is to bring her to the priest.  The priest will then dump dust and ink into a container of water, and force her to drink the dirtied water.  If she gets sick from it (or dies), it proves the allegation that she was adulterous; if she does not fall sick, then she is exonerated.  Furthermore, the woman is to drink this water in a state of public humiliation: her head is to be uncovered (a sign of shame back then) and she is forced to stand at the east gate of the temple in sight of the people, so that she might serve as a reminder against lewdness.  (All this even before she drinks the contaminated water.)

The Bible declares:

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure–then he is to take his wife to the priest…

The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water.…Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband”–here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath–”may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away. ” Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering…He is to have the woman drink the water.  If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, and she will become accursed among her people.

If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children. This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her [i.e. death by stoning]. The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’” (Numbers 5:11-31)

Matthew Henry, the eminent seventeenth and eighteenth century commentator on the Bible, explained these verses:

We have here the law concerning the solemn trial of a wife whose husband was jealous of her.

I. What was the case supposed:

1. That a man had some reason to suspect his wife to have committed adultery,

2. It is supposed to be a sin which great care is taken by the sinners to conceal, which there is no witness of…

3. The spirit of jealousy is supposed to come upon the husband…then he may compel her to drink the bitter water.  But the law here does not tie him to that particular method of proving the just cause of his suspicion; it might be otherwise proved. In case it could be proved that she had committed adultery, she was to be put to death (Lev. 20:10); but, if it was uncertain, then this law took place. Hence, (1.) Let all wives be admonished not to give any the least occasion for the suspicion of their chastity; it is not enough that they abstain from the evil of uncleanness, but they must abstain from all appearance of it, from every thing that looks like it, or leads to it, or may give the least umbrage to jealousy; for how great a matter may a little fire kindle! (2.) Let all husbands be admonished not to entertain any causeless or unjust suspicions of their wives…

II. The process of the trial must be thus:

(1.) Her husband must bring her to the priest, with the witnesses that could prove the ground of his suspicion, and desire that she might be put upon her trial. The Jews say that the priest was first to endeavour to persuade her to confess the truth…If she confessed, saying, “I am defiled,” she was not put to death, but was divorced and lost her dowry; if she said, “I am pure,” then they proceeded.

…

(3.) The priest was to prepare the water of jealousy…it must be [in] an earthen vessel, because the coarser and plainer every thing was the more agreeable it was to the occasion. Dust must be put into the water, to signify the reproach she lay under, and the shame she ought to take to herself, putting her mouth in the dust; but dust from the floor of the tabernacle…

(4.) The woman was to be set before the Lord, at the east gate of the temple-court (say the Jews), and her head was to be uncovered, in token of her sorrowful condition; and there she stood for a spectacle to the world, that other women might learn not to do after her lewdness, Eze. 23:48…

(5.) The priest was to adjure her to tell the truth, and to denounce the curse of God against her if she were guilty, and to declare what would be the effect of her drinking the water of jealousy, v. 19-22. He must assure her that, if she were innocent, the water would do her no harm, v. 19. None need fear the curse of the law if they have not broken the commands of the law. But, if she were guilty, this water would be poison to her, it would make her belly to swell and her thigh to rot, and she should be a curse or abomination among her people, v. 21, 22…

(6.) The priest was to write this curse in a scrip or scroll of parchment, verbatim-word for word, as he had expressed it, and then to wipe or scrape out what he had written into the water (v. 23), to signify that it was that curse which impregnated the water, and gave it its strength to effect what was intended. It signified that, if she were innocent, the curse should be blotted out and never appear against her, as it is written, Isa. 43:25, I am he that blotteth out thy transgression, and Ps. 51:9, Blot out my iniquities; but that, if she were guilty, the curse, as it was written, being infused into the water, would enter into her bowels with the water, even like oil into her bones (Ps. 109:18)…

(7.) The woman must then drink the water (v. 24); it is called the bitter water…

…

(9.) …If the suspected woman was really guilty, the water she drank would be poison to her (v. 27), her belly would swell and her thigh rot by a vile disease for vile deserts, and she would mourn at the last when her flesh and body were consumed, Prov. 5:11. Bishop Patrick says, from some of the Jewish writers, that the effect of these waters appeared immediately, she grew pale, and her eyes ready to start out of her head…

A special law for husbands exists in both Christianity and Islam.  Under Islamic law, the woman can avert the punishment simply by swearing to God that her husband is lying.  Even if she herself is lying when she does that, she can repent after that.  The Islamic exegist Ibn Kathir comments on the verses of Al-Li’an:

“But she shall avert the punishment” meaning, the prescribed punishment…Then God mentions His grace and kindness to His creation in that He has prescribed for them a way out of their difficulties. God says: “And had it not been for the grace of God and His mercy on you” meaning, many of your affairs would have been too difficult for you, “And that God is the One Who forgives and accepts repentance,” means, from His servants, even if that comes after they have sworn a confirmed oath. ^[36]

Although it will be counted as a sin against her for lying, she may be able to achieve penance by seeking forgiveness and correcting her ways.  Again, when it comes to convicting people of zinnah, the emphasis is always on acquittal.

The reasons for revelation of these Quranic verses revolved around husbands who walked in on their wives having sex with stranger men. They complained to the Prophet Muhammad, and then a problem arose.  Should these husbands be lashed for claiming that their wives had committed adultery?  After all, they hadn’t fulfilled the “near impossible” requirement of providing four witnesses.  Remember: the purpose of this requirement was to deter men from accusing women of being unchaste, because they should mind their own business; but could anyone doubt the fact that a wife’s disloyalty is a husband’s business?  So the question arose: did a husband have to provide four witnesses if he walked in on his wife having an affair with another man?

One of the Prophet’s disciples, a man by the name of Saad ibn Ubadah, said:

By God, O Messenger of God, I know that it [the verse requiring four witnesses] is true and is from God, but I am surprised. If I found some wicked man lying down with my wife, should I not disturb him until I have brought four witnesses?  By God, he would have finished what he was doing before I could bring them!

And later, a man by the name of Hilal ibn Umayyah walked in on his wife having sex with a stranger man.  He lamented to the Prophet Muhammad:

O Messenger of God, I came to my wife at night and found a man with her, and I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears.

The Prophet wanted to punish Hilal, for accusing a woman of being unchaste. Accusing a woman of fornication or adultery is considered a grave crime in Islam, which is the entire reason behind the four witnesses requirement. The Prophet Muhammad replied:

[Bring forth] evidence or the punishment on your back.

A group of the Muslims commented on the situation, saying:

We were being tested by what Saad bin Ubadah said, and now the Messenger of God will punish Hilal bin Umayyah and declare his testimony before people to be unacceptable.

Hilal responded:

By God, I hope that God will make for me a way out from this problem. O Messenger of God, I see how upset you are by what I have said, but God knows that I am telling the truth.

It was at that point that God revealed the verses of Al-Li’an to the Prophet Muhammad, as follows:

And for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves, let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies by God. (Quran, 24:6)

In that way, Hilal was saved from punishment, and the Prophet Muhammad said:

Rejoice, O Hilal, for God has made a way out for you.

The wife denied Hilal’s claim and said:

He is lying.

She swore four times and then a fifth time that she was innocent.  According to the verses of Al-Li’an, the wife’s testimony trumps that of the husband’s.  The Prophet Muhammad declared the two forever divorced, but neither party was to receive any worldly punishment.

The woman became pregnant and gave birth to a child who looked nothing like her husband; in fact, the child looked exactly like the man that Hilal accused of having the affair with his wife.  From this, the Prophet Muhammad knew that the woman was guilty, but he declared:

Were it not for the Book of God, I would deal with her. ^[37]

In other words, the Quran constrained the people from punishing an adulterous woman, even when there was ample proof against her.  (This is also the reason that jurists today reject photographic evidence or DNA proof.)  Reformist Muslims criticize fundamentalists for convicting women based on spurious evidence, whereas the Prophet Muhammad didn’t do that even when he had rock solid proof.

Non-Muslims

It should be noted that the hadud (corporal punishments) of the Sharia are only applicable to Muslims.  In the classical era, the Islamic state did not enforce such laws upon non-Muslims.  Rather, the non-Muslims were free to rule themselves according to their own religious scriptures, in accordance to the practice of the Prophet Muhammad.  I discussed this in more detail here.

As for Muslims living in non-Muslim lands, it is understood by Islamic jurisprudence that there is no hadud applicable there, even upon Muslims.  The hadud is to be enforced only in the lands of Islam, under the auspices of the Imam or Caliph of the Muslims.  The fatwa site SunniPath.com says:

Hadd punishments are the province of the Imam of the Muslims, and are irrelevant for Muslims living in the West. ^[38]

Conclusion

There are four ways to secure a conviction for fornication and adultery: (1) four witnesses, (2) self-confession, (3) pregnancy, and (4) Al-Li’an.  Yet, Muslims believe that all four routes have been virtually closed off by the Mercy of God.  (1) The requirement of four witnesses is “near impossible” to fulfill: according to Islamic clerics, not a single case exists in the entire history of Islam in which it was fulfilled.  (2) As for self-confession, the Islamic tradition strongly recommends believers not to confess their sins or seek legal punishments; rather, they should repent to God in private and bask in His Mercy.  (3) As for pregnancy, it is not sufficient proof in and of itself; if an unmarried pregnant woman denies that she committed fornication, this is enough to save her from punishment.  (4) As for Al-Li’an, the wife’s testimony trumps the husband’s, and saves her from any punishment, even if she is really guilty.

The general rule, argue reformist Muslims, is that the government should mind its own business and not interfere in the private lives of its citizens.  As for the sexual escapades of its citizens, this does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Islamic state.  Rather, argue these Muslims, the authorities ought to educate the citizenry about the sinful nature of fornication and adultery, its ill effects on society, and the benefits of chastity.  Ultimately, it is better for people to abstain from sins based on their own moral compass than from the heavy hand of government.  It is for this reason that sexual sins remain unpunished in this world, according to reformist (and even conservative) Muslims.

When it comes to consensual sex between two consenting adults, there is no Islamic legal punishment that is enforced.  Robert Spencer has used this fact to claim that the Sharia takes a similar stance towards rape.  His argument is that the Islamic law requires four witnesses to prove rape, a “near impossible” requirement.  I shall refute his claim in my next article.

Footnotes

refer back to article 1. Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, #4435

refer back to article 2. al-Ikhtiyar li talil al-Mukhtar, 2/312-313

refer back to article 3. Khaled Abou El Fadl, The Death Penalty, Mercy, and Islam: A Call for Retrospection

refer back to article 4. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=865&letter=A

refer back to article 5. Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Muslim

refer back to article 6. Sahih al-Muslim

refer back to article 7. http://www.fountainmagazine.com/article.php?ARTICLEID=1039

refer back to article 8. http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/islamicsexlaws.html

refer back to article 9. http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=4208&CATE=42

refer back to article 10. Ibid.

refer back to article 11. I have used the term “Wahhabi” here simply because the readers may be unfamiliar with the proper term “Salafi”.

refer back to article 12. al-Sharh al-Mumti’ (6/157)

refer back to article 13. http://islamqa.com/en/ref/88051/pregnancy%20proof

refer back to article 14. http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/6926

refer back to article 15. Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, #4387

refer back to article 16. Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Muslim

refer back to article 17. Sahih al-Muslim

refer back to article 18. http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=4208&CATE=42

refer back to article 19. Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, #4414

refer back to article 20. http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=4208&CATE=42

refer back to article 21. Sahih Muslim, #1695

refer back to article 22. Sunan Abu Dawud

refer back to article 23. Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, #4414

refer back to article 24. Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, #4420

refer back to article 25. http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/27113/confession

refer back to article 26. http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/23485

refer back to article 27. http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=1549&CATE=389

refer back to article 28. Sahih Muslim, #2577

refer back to article 29. Sahih al-Jami, #4338

refer back to article 30. Sahih al-Jami, #3008

refer back to article 31. http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=4208&CATE=42

refer back to article 32. Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, #4405

refer back to article 33. http://www.tariqramadan.com/spip.php?article264

refer back to article 34. http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=1550&CATE=389

refer back to article 35. http://islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=158&main_cat_id=6

refer back to article 36. Tafsir ibn Kathir, commentary on chapter 24

refer back to article 37. Ibid.; all quotes from the above story are taken from Tafsir ibn Kathir

refer back to article 38. http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=1550&CATE=389

Is Joyce Kaufman related to Joe Kaufman by any chance? Florida seems to have a high percentage of loons!

Cerabino: Publix Calendar Yanked through Political Mischief

Hey, don’t bother looking for your free Publix calendar.

The coupon-loaded calendar, which had been a yearly giveaway for the past five years, was yanked this past week from all of the chain’s South Florida supermarkets.

Why? Collateral damage of today’s political climate.

On Dec. 7, the 2010 calendar lists Islamic New Year, not Pearl Harbor Day.

There are two ways to react:

1. To get into a xenophobic tizzy while weaving this into a narrative of a vast anti-American conspiracy that leads right up to the subversive undercover-Muslim, Kenyan interloper in the White House.

Or …

2. To assume that the grocery store chain has no reason to offend people, and that Publix, in an effort to be inclusive, inadvertently became a victim of a synchronicity of dates and an unconscious omission.

Publix pointed out that Pearl Harbor Day had never been listed in the store’s calendars . And the Islamic New Year had been on the Publix calendar since 2006.

And nobody complained.

Not a political document

The rub is that this year the Islamic New Year, which changes dates because it is based on a lunar calendar, falls on Pearl Harbor Day.

And why does the calendar list Islamic New Year? For the same inclusive reason it lists the Jewish High Holidays, Chinese New Year and an international array of other dates, including Puerto Rico Commonwealth Constitutional Day, Haitian Flag Day, Boss’s Day and Administrative Assistant’s Day.

It’s not a political document. It’s a calendar with pictures of animals that you get for free, along with discount coupons. To make more of it is to engage in political mischief.

“I was driving home Tuesday night and Allen West told me to look at the Publix calendar,” said Joyce Kaufman, a WFTL-AM talk-show host.

West, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a Republican candidate running for the congressional seat held by Rep. Ron Klein, D-Boca Raton.

Radio host urges audience uprising

Kaufman, who advertises her radio show with the words “America first. No apologies,” didn’t require much arm twisting to parlay the quinella of Islamophobia and flag waving to her audience the next day.

“What relevance does Islamic New Year have in my country?” Kaufman told me. “Islam is an ideology, and it’s not friendly to me.”

She said World War II veterans were “terribly offended” and she urged her audience to show up at their local Publix to complain.

“You show this calendar to the manager and say, ‘What’s wrong with this picture?’ ”

Meanwhile, a “Dear Fellow Americans” e-mail was urging a boycott, citing an “un-American attitude” of Publix for “recognizing the Muslim New Year over Pearl Harbor Day.”

Publix wisely yanked the benign calendar, which had become a talking point in a cartoonish alternate universe.

“Based on feedback we have received this year, if a free calendar is produced for 2011, we will also include Pearl Harbor Day,” Publix spokesman Kim Jaeger said in a statement.

~ frank_cerabino@pbpost.com

Peter Mullen

Rev. Mullen continues the anti-Muslim Islamophobia. (via Islamophobia-Watch)

C of E Priest, Peter Mullen continues to spout anti-Muslim bigotry

Revd. Peter Mullen (pictured), Rector of St Michael’s, Cornhill, and St Sepulchre-without-Newgate church in the City of London, offers a further sampling of his bigoted views on Muslims in a recent column in the Northern Echo.

Mullen, commenting on the attempted Detroit airplane bombing, writes:

‘…we are not fighting the murderous Islamic fundamentalists where they are at their strongest – and that is in Britain. We have not followed up the promises we made after the July 2005 London tube bombings.

‘For instance, the authorities still tolerate the informal operation of sharia law in Muslim areas. We support the Muslim Council of Great Britain which gives aid and comfort to Islamic extremism. The Government has refused to outlaw the Hizb ut-Tahrir organisation which preaches jihad. We have not prosecuted the fanatics in mosques and madrassas who advocate terrorism.

‘Our junk universities have allowed freedom of speech to the promoters of terrorism and provided sanctuary for Islamist students who shout the hate-filled slogans of al Qaida.’

Does the good Reverend not realize that voluntary Shari’ah councils in the UK are not an ‘informal operation’ but are mandated by the Arbitration Act, as are orthodox Jewish Beth Din courts?

And on what grounds does Mullen defend his assertion that ‘We support the Muslim Council of Great Britain which gives aid and comfort to Islamic extremism’?

He doesn’t substantiate the claim with any evidence, largely because nothing from the MCB would lead one to believe that it ‘gives aid and comfort to Islamic extremism’.

And had Mullen read the TaxPayers Alliances’ extensive study on the distribution of Prevent funds, or read Hansard for ministerial statements on allocation of various funds to Muslim organisations, he’d have known that the MCB is not financially supported by any body other than itself.

Mullen continues:

‘Effectually, our intelligence services are fighting this war with one hand tied behind their back. What is the use of their identifying extremist agitators and terrorists in the making if legislators do not allow them to take vigorous action against these enemies?’

What ‘vigorous action’ is Mullen proposing that legislators stand in the way of? Banning HT even though the Justice Secretary has acknowledged that there are no legal grounds for doing so? Torture, detention without trial, or the imposition of control orders? Or rendition perhaps?

‘All this official talk of young Muslims being “radicalised” – as if taking up terrorism were something passive – is particularly irritating.

‘As if these incipient mass-murderers were victims. They are not victims, but perpetrators of evil acts committed according to the dictates of their own perverted ideology.

‘They should be weeded out by all rational means; imprisonment or deportation. The so called educational institutions operating as schools for terrorism should be closed down’, he says.

It’s not the first time Mullen has courted controversy. ENGAGE had cause to write to the Bishop of London for comments Mullen made last year about Muslims on Hajj, to which we, sadly, got no reply. He wrote:

“They usually manage to stampede and slaughter quite a few hundred of their coreligionists. Just imagine for a moment what a field day the BBC and the leftwing press in England would have if anything even remotely as bad as that happened in Vatican Square at Christmas or Easter.”

In a different blog on Muslim prayer, Mullen wrote:

“[Muslims] certainly lend themselves to ridicule: sticking their arses in the air five times a day. How about a few little choruses, ‘Randy Muslims when they die/Find 70 virgins in the sky’?”

Last year he was forced to apologise for making derogatory, offensive comments about gays on one of his blogs yet, somehow, he managed to keep his column at the Northern Echo.

You can write to the editor of the Northern Echo, Peter Barron, (email: peter.barron[at]nne.co.uk) and ask why, despite these persistent displays of despicable bigotry and anti-Muslim sentiment, the Revd. Mullen continues to be offered a column in the paper to spout his venom?

Judith Townend on Journalism.co.uk remarks, ‘if you now search priest + sodomy, on Google most the results return articles about Peter Mullen. Ironic, that.’

Perhaps searches for ‘priest + bigot’ will return the same results.

Janet Keeping

Well worth the read!

The Irrationality of Islamophobia

by Janet Keeping

CALGARY, AB, Jan. 3, 2010/ — Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Muslim from Nigeria and a passenger on a commercial airliner destined for Detroit, is charged with attempting to blow the plane up. The Christmas-day near-catastrophe was the perfect scenario to feed further fear of Muslims. It should not.

Certain strains of Islam, like some varieties of Christianity and other belief systems, preach seriously dangerous ideas. With careful thought we can sort the real threats to our peaceful, democratic way of life from what is harmless, that, is, “different”. Without such careful thought, we will get more irrational mistrust of everything Muslim – more Islamophobia, pure prejudice. Lazy thinking leads to the bad; careful reflection is necessary for the good.

Consider the Swiss ban on minarets, the towers adorning some mosques. There are four mosques in Switzerland with minarets. Nevertheless, organizers of the anti-minaret initiative are said to believe that “minarets represent the growth of an alien ideology and legal system that have no place in the Swiss democracy.” “Forced marriages [for example] – we don’t have that in Switzerland, and we don’t want to introduce it . . . Therefore, there’s no room for minarets in Switzerland.”

Faulty logic, bad thinking

The “logic” appears to be this: because minarets are an architectural detail associated with a religion, some forms of which are incompatible with modern European democracy, it is OK to prohibit the construction of minarets. This would be silly if it weren’t so frightening.

Don’t get me wrong. I am as much against forced marriage and other forms of oppression – so much of it directed towards women – as anyone (in fact, as an unabashed feminist, probably much more so). But the reasoning behind the anti-minaret vote is rubbish.

Consider some of the sorrier episodes in Christianity. Probably most infamous are the Crusades, a series of bloody military campaigns waged largely against Muslims to restore control over Middle Eastern lands viewed as holy by Christians. Things did not improve much over time – remember the Inquisition?

It is widely accepted that the Catholic Church was sympathetic to the Holocaust of Europe’s Jews and other minorities by the Nazis. Then there was the Dutch Reformed Church fervent support of Apartheid in South Africa. Strict division of races and the supposed superiority of whites lay at the heart of that religion’s teachings.

There is simply no doubt that enormous evil has been done in the name of Christianity or with the tacit support of some of its most prominent leaders. So should the Christian cross be banned? Of course not.

We face a choice: let ourselves be tricked into thinking that the symbol (minaret, cross or the like) is the problem, or think it through. We can let ourselves be used by the demagogues and endorse suppression of symbols. But this will do no good and at the same time lots of harm by alienating those for whom the symbol is precious.

A happier alternative

Or we can recognize that dealing constructively with diversity-engendered conflict requires effort and application of our best thinking.

With the influx of people from cultures very different from those found in the liberal democracies (for example, in Canada, the United States, western Europe, New Zealand and Australia), there will be tensions – as there always have been. Some of the practices brought by contemporary immigrants are unquestionably backward, for example, favouring male children over female, exclusion of women from public life, or forced marriage. But it wasn’t so long ago that mainstream Canadian society emerged from that dark misogynistic place itself, and it would be regressive in the extreme for us to slip back from the human rights gains made by women and others, such as gays.

But avoidance of Islamophobia is also a human rights imperative and, in order to achieve it, we need keep two things in mind. First, some versions of Islam are not anti-women or otherwise dangerous to human rights. So aversion to Islam per se is nonsense. Second, while we ought to struggle against the importation of backwards views, there is nothing bad or good about a minaret. It’s just an architectural detail – beautiful to some, not so much to others, but not inherently evil or in any way dangerous.

We must make a distinction — there are things to get properly excited about (for example, the oppression of women and attempts to blow up planes) and there are differences which present no threat at all (like minarets). It is repressive and undemocratic to ban the latter. It is right and good to oppose the former.

Lord Carey - Telegraph

Writing in the Times, Lord Carey explains why he he has signed up to a call for restrictions on immigration:

“The sheer numbers of migrants … threaten the very ethos or DNA of our nation…. Democratic institutions such as the monarchy, Parliament, the judiciary, the Church of England, our free press and the BBC … support the liberal democratic values of the nation. Some groups of migrants, however, are ambivalent about or even hostile to such institutions. The proposed antiwar Islamist march in Wootton Bassett is a clear example of the difficulties extremists pose to British society.

“Furthermore, the idea that Britain can continue to welcome with open arms immigrants who immediately establish their own tribunals to apply Sharia, rather than make use of British civil law, is deeply socially divisive.”

See also the Daily Mail, 7 January 2010 (via Islamophobia-Watch)

Conspiracy alert! Czech Cardinal Miloslav Vlk says “Muslims” are gradually conquering Europe. The comment from the Cardinal is fairly tame but and is directed more towards domestic consumption but still feeds into the narrative of conspiracy. (via Islamophobia-watch)

Czech Cardinal says Christian Europe is to blame for Islamisation

Czech Cardinal Miloslav Vlk, the Archbishop of Prague, said Muslims were well placed to fill the spiritual void “created as Europeans systematically empty the Christian content of their lives”.

“Europe will pay dear for having left its spiritual foundations and that this is the last period that will not continue for decades when it may still have a chance to do something about it,” he said.

“Unless the Christians wake up, life may be Islamised and Christianity will not have the strength to imprint its character on the life of people, not to say society.”

The 77-year-old cardinal made his remarks in an interview to mark his retirement after spending 19 years as the leader of the Czech Church.

He said he did not blame Muslims for the crisis as Europeans had brought it upon themselves by exchanging their Christian culture for an aggressive secularism that embraced atheism.

“Europe has denied its Christian roots from which it has risen and which could give it the strength to fend off the danger that it will be conquered by Muslims, which is actually happening gradually,” he said.

“At the end of the Middle Ages and in the early modern age, Islam failed to conquer Europe with arms. The Christians beat them then.

“Today, when the fighting is done with spiritual weapons which Europe lacks while Muslims are perfectly armed, the fall of Europe is looming.”

He called on Christians to respond to the threat of Islamisation by living their own religious faith more observantly.

Last year Cardinal Jose Policarpo, the Patriarch of Lisbon, warned Catholic women against marrying Muslims.

Italian Cardinal Giacomo Biffi also urged the Italian government to give priority to Catholic migrants over Muslims in order to protect his country’s religious identity.

The Vatican has also opposed Turkey joining the European Union partly because the Muslim country does not share the continent’s Christian heritage

Stephen Colbert

Stephen Colbert says all young Muslims should be given a colonoscopy.

David Edwards and John Byrne
Raw Story
Wednesday, January 6, 2010

In a desultory rant Tuesday night, Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert jabbed conservatives who are promoting racial profiling and more radical techniques after the failed Christmas bomb plot against a commercial jetliner.

“Every time a young Muslim man arrives at the airport, the TSA should respectfully take him aside and give him an involuntary colonoscopy,” Colbert quipped. “This cannot fail. Everyone knows that terrorists are all young, poor, disenfranchised Arab Muslims. Well, except the Christmas bomber, who is a middle-class well-educated Nigerian. Which, frankly, I don’t think is fair.

“We elected a black guy. What more do Nigerians want? I mean, ever since we elected JFK, the Irish haven’t terrorized us… So i guess we have to profile anyone who looks like a Nigerian too. Basically, all black people.

“And, I’m not saying all black people look alike,” Colbert continued. “I’m saying I can’t tell them apart. I mean, which of these guys is Kenyan? Of course, there was the dirty bomber Jose Padilla, so we’ll have to go after Hispanics too. Then there’s shoe bomber Richard Reid. God only knows what he is. Belgian? Patchouli? To be safe, let’s profile anyone named ‘Reid.’”

“Ben Franklin did say, ‘Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither,’” Colbert added wryly. “Then again, Franklin said a lot of things.”

This video is from Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report, broadcast Jan. 5, 2010

Does this mean that Christianity calls for forced conversions? Imagine if a “Mooslim” had said the same thing while disparaging another religion.

Fox News’ Brit Hume says Tiger Woods Needs to Become a Christian

Fox News’ Brit Hume has obviously spent some time worrying about the ultimate fate of Tiger Woods’ soul.

He apparently felt compelled to share his concerns with a national audience Sunday.

“The extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith,” Hume said. “He is said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger is, ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

Remember, that’s a newsman offering advice to the beleaguered golfer, not a religious pundit. Hume is a senior political analyst, so why is he doing his Bible-thumping on one of the station’s news programs?

Thomas McInerney, a retired US Lieutenant was on Fox News advocating that Muslim men between the ages of 18-28 be strip searched. The Fox host Julia Banderas surprisingly takes him on, which leads the the lieutenant to contradict himself in the worst way.

He goes from saying that “we should use profiling, and I mean we have to be very serious and harsh about the profiling, if you are an 18-28 year old Muslim man then you should be strip searched” to saying “I don’t want to racial profile, I want to profile on that group that we have enough evidence, from 9/11 and other cases, Moussoui, etc. that we know what we’re looking at.” He doesn’t make any sense, but that isn’t anything new for Fox pundits.

Retired US general wants Muslim men strip searched at airports

Retired Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney wants to get young Muslim men naked in the worst way.

Awkward as that sentence sounds, it is an accurate description of the former US Air Force general’s comments during a recent Fox News broadcast.

“We’ve got to go to more than just the normal process that they’re talking about now,” he opined on Saturday. “We have got to go to very, very strict screening and we’ve got to use profiling. And I mean, be very, very serious about the profiling. If you are an 18-28-year-old Muslim man, then you should be strip searched. If we don’t do that, there’s a very high probability that we’re gonna lose an airliner.”

McInerney said that “in the next 30-100 days,” there is “very high probability a US airliner will come down.”

When the Fox host blandly objected that racial profiling would not go over in the United States, he replied, “I agree, that’s the problem.”

The general’s comment comes one day before that the Transportation Security Administration announced new, “enhanced screening” tactics at U.S. airports, with a renewed focus on foreign travelers.

All passengers flying into the United States from abroad will be subject to random screening or so-called “threat-based” screens, the TSA said Sunday.

It further mandated that “every individual flying into the US from anywhere in the world traveling from or through nations that are state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest will be required to go through enhanced screening” that includes a thorough inspection of luggage and pat-down searches.

“If you lose 300 Americans, and then people are gonna say ‘Why didn’t we do this?’” the general insisted.

McInerney, who has been a Fox News military analyst for years, was Director of the Defense Performance Review during the Clinton administration and reported directly to the Secretary of Defense. He is currently chairman of the Iran Policy Committee’s advisory council and co-author ofthe book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror”.

In his book, the general advocates a scenario of nearly endless war, urging the conditional invasions of Syria, North Korea and Saudi Arabia. He also argues that deceased Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein hid his weapons of mass destruction in Syria; a primary reason he calls for their destruction.

“The authors’ ambitious schedule of ultimatums and conquests leads them to focus almost exclusively on the U.S. military, for which they recommend the Rumsfeld doctrine of light, mobile forces, supplemented by additional weapons spending,” reads a Publishers Weekly review of “Endgame”. “Homeland security gets scant attention beyond vague proposals for a Terrorist Security Department and Special Terrorist Courts involving substantial infringements on due process.”

“Broad-based ethnic profiling creates in turn panic and the false sense of security that airlines are actually preventing terrorist attacks,” wrote Earl Ofari Hutchinson in a commentary for New Media America. “It also causes law enforcement resources to be squandered chasing the wrong targets. Worse, it’s a witch hunt against a group based solely on their religion and ethnicity. This fuels even greater racial division, fear and hysteria.”

To her credit, Fox News host Julie Banderas pushed back against the former general, insisting that racial and religious profiling at airports is “not going to go over — not in this country, anyway.”

“The sound of the latex glove snapping shut against a hairy wrist — that’s the sound of Freedom itself, ringing out in tile-walled rooms with the abrupt harshness of a fluorescent light and the unforgiving tightness of arm restraints,” mocked the Inside-Out the Beltway blog. “God Bless America.”

This video was broadcast by Fox News on Jan. 2, 2009, as snipped by Mediaite.

The conspiracy theories swerving around Barack Obama continue, now right-wingers are claiming Obama and MoveOn are working with CAIR to harm America. A book needs to be written about all these conspiracy theories.

Obama, MoveOn working with CAIR

Continuing with the trend from Christmas there seems to be an uptick in hate crimes targeting Muslims, this time in Southern California.

Costa Mesa – Police are investigating a series of apparent hate crimes targeting Muslims in Southern California.

Mosques and displays have been vandalized in Costa Mesa, Mission Viejo, and Azusa in recent weeks… in five separate incidents.

On New Year’s Day, someone left a burned and tattered Quran… the Islamic faith’s holy text… at the back entrance of the Islamic Education Center while hundreds of people worshipped inside.

This story in the LA Times covers what is going on

O.C. Islamic Educational Center a Target of anti-Muslim acts

Costa Mesa police have stepped up patrols near the Islamic Educational Center of Orange County, the target of recent anti-Islamic acts including vandalism, hate mail and the burning of two copies of the Koran.

Vandals also recently defaced part of an outdoor interfaith holiday display in Mission Viejo, according to the Los Angeles office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which denounced both acts as “incidents of anti-Islam hate targeting the local Muslim community.”

The two incidents are thought to be unrelated but appear to be part of a recent uptick in anti-Muslim acts nationally, especially since the attempted terrorist bombing of a jetliner headed to Detroit on Christmas, council spokeswoman Munira Syeda said Saturday.

A burned and torn copy of the Koran was found in the parking lot at the educational center, on Airport Loop Drive, during Friday prayers. It was the second time in a month that a desecrated Koran had been found there, according to a statement on the Costa Mesa mosque’s website.

“This deplorable incident is a form of anti-Islamic assault, hate crime and terror campaign against American Muslims,” it read. “Even more, it is a great offense against 1.2 billion Muslim followers worldwide because it defiles their holiest and most sacred divine book.”

Costa Mesa Police Sgt. Ed Everett said that his department has increased patrols in the area but that no arrests have been made.

In the Mission Viejo incident, vandals defaced the Islamic portion of the holiday display but left nearby Christian components untouched. They painted over a verse from the Koran and left behind a piece of paper reading “No Islamic Lighthouses in the U.S.A.”

Syeda said the vandalism of the display, at La Paz Road and Chrisanta Drive, was reported to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, which provides police services to Mission Viejo. Investigators could not be reached Saturday.

Syeda and other Muslims said they hope the incidents prompt public disavowals of such behavior.

“Americans of all faiths, and leaders of all political persuasions, must repudiate those who would divide our nation along religious or racial lines,” Hussam Ayloush, the L.A. council’s executive director, said in a statement.

I am a little apprehensive in writing this piece because I don’t want to give more credence or traffic to some back water unknown Islamophobe then he deserves. However, I do think it is instructional considering the persistent affection and repetition with which they hold one particularly morbid fantasy: bombing Mecca.

I could go into a historical analysis of what we call the Nuclear Card, charting how various belligerents starting from the Crusader Raynald of Chatillon all the way to Tom Trancredo in the present day have employed the threat of destroying Mecca and Medina for their cause but I will leave that for another day.

In this case we have Bob Beers writing for the Canada Free Press which surprisingly gets a lot of traffic while peddling in some of the most hate filled and racist commentary on the internet but more on that later.

How About We Bomb Mecca?

By Bob Beers Friday, November 6, 2009

Major Malik Hassan, after being transferred from Walter Reed Hospital to Fort Hood decided to celebrate his promotion and transfer by shouting “God is great” in Arabic while gunning down a dozen of his fellow soldiers.

The mainstream media is falling all over itself today in an attempt to somehow paint this domestic Islamic terrorist as the victim rather than the perpetrator. Muslim-friendly to the point of being Muslim-centric, the news networks are even trying to do their reporting without mentioning the killer’s name.

It has been grudgingly revealed that Hassan had months before posted the glorification of suicide bombers on his own web site. There is information trickling out of Walter Reed that his promotion and transfer were not so much a reward but a way for the hospital to get rid of him. Can you imagine what the reporting would be like if his last name had been Smith and he was a Southern Baptist? How about if the web site had glorified the pro-life agenda? No, the news wouldn’t be at all politically correct, it would be screaming for the death penalty.

How many more innocents must be killed by islamofascists before that glorified cult is recognized for what it is? Adherents of the world’s most violent and intolerant religion flew terrified passengers into the World Trade Center’s towers screaming the same line Hassan yelled out as the coward machine-gunned down his fellow soldiers. Nearly every day we read about some innocent young girl being killed by her own relatives because she “dishonored” her family by doing something non-Islamic. I have come to believe that a devout Muslim is incapable of anything close to real love. A loving father would die to save his daughter’s life, not the honor of a phony religion. In reality they more closely resemble trained beasts rather than people. People simply do not act in that fashion on a regular basis. People have aberrations and in some cases will act stupidly or violently, but unless there is a real problem with their mental/emotional makeup they do not act as an Islamist does.

Before you come out of the woodwork to accuse me of not knowing what I’m writing about, let me assure you that I do. I spent a number of years studying comparative religion, including the one started by an Arab thief/con man/thug/pedophile named Muhammad. The worship of the Babylonian Moon God Allah was at one time a minor religion among hundreds in the Babylonian Empire. The followers of that religion had to make a pilgrimage to the temple each year and touch the idol of Allah in order to keep their ticket to heaven active. When Muhammad fanatically decided to revitalize his fading religion, the remnant of the idol was placed in Mecca where it still rests as the so-called “black rock”. Followers of Islam still must pay homage to that idol in order to fulfill their religious duty. If that duty is unfulfilled, they are out. So, what if the rock no longer exists? Hmmm? An interesting thought.

Some have posited that if something happened to the idol, the world’s Muslims would riot, throwing the world into gory chaos. They may be partially right, but not all would do this and if the world’s armies were diligent, it would be a good way of clearing out the villains. Even with that, I think the world would be better off because the Islamofascists would no longer have any hope of making it to their 72 virgins, regardless of how many school children they slaughtered. You cannot sacrifice to an idol that doesn’t exist.

If I were President this is what I would tell the Saudis, If one more terrorist incident happens in the US by any sect of your religion, even if you didn’t order it, say goodbye to your temple. Do you think there would be a few orders sent out to the training camps?

Well, at least I can dream.

Bob Beers no doubt is a sick puppy with sick dreams of apocalyptic chaos and destruction, he is not as sophisticated as a Robert Spencer who doesn’t condemn the idea of bombing Mecca but only thinks it’s a bad idea on practical grounds. What never fails to surprise me is the utter stupidity and lack of logic of die hard anti-Muslim Islamophobes like Beers. In their warped rationale threatening to bomb Mecca would some how deter terrorists instead of emboldening them. The fact is that if the US government or any government for that fact were crazy enough to follow up on the dreams of Bob Beers it would practically set the whole Muslim world, all 1.5 billion against the West.

We can rest assured at night that at the helm of our governments at the moment we have rational players who won’t succumb to such nightmarish fantasies, but who is to say that will always be the case? God forbid that a Sarah Palin type of politician were to become president, if that were to happen it would be cause enough to move the hand on the Nuclear Clock closer to doomsday.

Yet, why do so many take the Canada Free Press seriously? Their social networking editor is a ninth grader by the name of Chase Clift who in his spare time likes to volunteer for the Southern Secessionist Movement and also works for the Confederate Liberation Society which extols the virtues of the Confederacy and revisits history to condemn Abraham Lincoln. The Society’s goal is “an official Peace Treaty signed with the United States of America and a swift transfer of all powers to the government of the Confederate States of America.”

So much for their ramblings about being patriotic Americans, and one has to ask the seminal question of Robert Spencer here, “why are you listed as one of the columnists on Canada Free Press?”

Malmo Mosque

No Suspects in Attack against Malmo Mosque

As of New Year‘s Eve evening, police had no suspects for an attack against a mosque in Malmö earlier in the day when shots had been fired through the window of the building.

Nobody was seriously injured during the incident. The imam was taken to hospital to treat minor cuts from glass splinters, but he was not struck by a bullet. He was allowed to leave the hospital after his cuts were bandaged.

Around five people, including the imam, were in an office following the evening prayers.

“The imam was sitting in front of the computer when (we heard) a bang. At first I thought there had been an explosion,” one of the witnesses told Sydsvenskan newspaper.

Bejzat Becirov, head of the Islamic Center, said that he doesn’t believe the shots were aimed at a particular individual but rather at the mosque.

“We receive threats all the time. Unfortunately, we have become immune to it. Despite all the incidents, the police have never arrested anyone,” he told TT news agency.

The incident is classifed as attempted murder or aggravated assault.

Police currently have little to go on in their investigation. “We are looking for information from witnesses,” police information officer Cindy Schönström-Larsson said.

“Knocking on doors doesn’t work. The mosque is located by itself and there are no other buildings around,” she added.

The Swedish Muslim Association (Sveriges Muslimska Förbund) said in a statement that they take the attack very seriously. The mosque in Malmö has reportedly been the target of several cases of attempted arson over the last ten years.

“These criminals are being driven by islamophobia. The police must protect (Sweden’s) mosques and their followers against racist threats,” Mahmoud Aldebe, head of the association, said.

Joe Kaufman

Joe Kaufman, a Kahanist inspired anti-Muslim crusader against “evil” CAIR has been outed by Susan Starkey, Council woman in Davie Town, Florida. This whole drama began when Kaufman’s hate organization (which is him and three other people) became offended that CAIR and some “Mooslims” had participated in a program to pick up litter from the streets. In their insane folly Kaufman and company accused Starkey of being an “Anti-Semite” and a supporter of “terrorism.”

Susan Starkey Responds to Anti-Semitism Allegations

Davie Town Council member Susan Starkey says she never said “Jews try to convert everyone,” as alleged by activist Joe Kaufman, of the Coral Springs-based Americans Against Hate.

The exchange occurred December 18 between Starkey and Jeff Rubinoff, at the holiday party of the Davie / Cooper Republican Club, of which Rubinoff is chairman. He wanted Starkey to take down an adopt-a-street sign that recognized the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim group attacked by conservatives for ties to Hamas. The sign is near the intersection of College Avenue and Southwest 39th Avenue.

In an email, Starkey told Juice:

The statement he alleged ” Jews try to convert everyone”. I am stunned by and offended by the comments and written statements such as this made by Jeff Rubinoff and further perpetuated by Joe Kaufman. I would not say such statements that would offend anyone in this way.

There was at no time any “Anti-Semitic rant” made by me. Mr. Rubinoff is a member of the same activist group as Mr. Kaufman. Many statements made by Mr. Kaufman are hateful, prejudice and outright lies. I have had a wonderful opportunity to serve the town’s diverse population of 92,000 residents as well as a colleges and university professors and students within the town. I had promoted, supported and voted for a $18 Million dollar bond for which the town co-signed with the Broward Jewish Federation, and Davie JCC and Soref no other city in Broward stepped up to help. I have attended at invitation of my Jewish Community many events and functions. I supported Rabbi Pinny’s congregation in the Town of Davie and in fact meet with him and a friend today for guidance on this matter.

We should also note, for the record, that the Jewish faith is not one for proselytizing. In fact, it’s a mighty big hassle to convert to Judaism, at least compared to the ease with which you can become a Christian.

In an email yesterday to Starkey, I asked her to characterize her discussion with Rubinoff.

I would describe the holiday conversation on Dec. 18th a little out of the ordinary in the fact that Mr. Rubinoff was upset that Broward County and the Town of Davie had not immediately removed a sign that he and Mr. Kaufman insisted be removed. He demanded answers and I explained that we were looking into the matter. I have since learned that the sign in question is a part of the Broward County “Adopt a Street” Program to clean up litter on the streets and they are handled administratively by the County and Town Staff. No action is required of the County Commission or the Town Council. This is a volunteer program by organizations to pick up litter.

In yesterday’s post, I ventured a theory that the rupture between the two Republicans, Starkey and Rubinoff, was an illustration of larger statewide trend of conflict between the party’s moderates and its more conservative wing. Starkey’s environmental activism would seem to put her among the party’s moderates, while Rubinoff’s suspicions about CAIR suggests he’s in the more conservative crowd. Starkey responded:

Yes, I am a registered Republican but do not belong to any “clubs”. Municipal government is non-partisan. I consider myself a fiscal conservative environmentalist. I believe in strong family values, community, honesty and integrity and treating everyone fairly as I would like to be treated.I have know that both the Republicans and Democrats have divisions with extreme views sometimes on both sides. I prefer to stay involved with my issues within the town that are important to my residents and stay out of the fray, there is more than enough to keep us busy in trying to provide adequate quality services in these tough economic times.

Kaufman, who admits he didn’t witness the argument between Starkey and Rubinoff, rejects the idea that it was related to any trends of Republican Party tension. In an email responding to yesterday’s post he said:

Mr. Rubinoff’s interaction with Councilmember Starkey had absolutely nothing to do with any type of infighting between members of a political party, and it had absolutely nothing to do with any political issues. Rubinoff did what’s right, and he should be commended for it.

Your spin has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever.

So there you have it.

The paranoid calls to profile Muslims on airplanes have become louder in recent days.  Here’s a story from 2008 that ought to make us think twice about such an un-American response (hat tip: KevinMD.com):

Doctor Flying Southwest Tries To Go To Bathroom, Ends Up In Jail

By Chris Walters on September 24, 2008

A 65-year-old urologist, born in India but living in the United States for 38 years now, was flying from his home in Missouri to a medical convention in Las Vegas on June 26th, 2008. Did you notice that “born in India” detail? Apparently his attempts to go to the bathroom angered and frightened a flight attendant, who wouldn’t tell Dr. Sivaprasad Madduri why he couldn’t use the lavatory (the pilot was using it) and who wouldn’t listen to Dr. Madduri’s explanation that he was taking a medicine that acts as a diuretic. When the plane landed he was arrested, spent the night in jail, and was told the next day to plead guilty and pay $2500 if he wanted a quick resolution.

Southwest has since told Dr. Madduri, “We don’t want this experience to affect your feelings about flying with us in the future,” and they’ve offered him a $100 voucher. It turns out the “apology” was meant for the other passengers, and was in fact about Dr. Madduri.

From Rediff:

Ironically, even before he filed his complaint with the Southwest Airlines officials, he got a letter from Frederick Taylor Jr, senior manager at the airline’s customer service communications, offering a $100 voucher for a future flight.

“Sometimes, an explanation for the reason why things happen is not always possible, and the bizarre behaviour of the individual during your June 26 flight to Las Vegas supports this point,” Taylor said in a letter accompanying the voucher. “While I am unable to explain the circumstances surrounding the disruption, I think it is important to offer my heartfelt apologies for any concerns you may have had as a result of this event”.

“Naturally, we don’t want this experience to affect your feelings about flying with us in the future, or for it to be your last recollection of traveling with our company. In fact we would consider it a privilege if you gave us another opportunity to provide you with better memories.”

Here’s Dr. Madduri’s story in his own words:

[I am] a physician from India who immigrated to the United States 38 years ago and [has] been in private practice in South East Missouri for more than a quarter century.

On June 26, 2008, I traveled from St Louis to Las Vegas to attend AAPI annual convention by Southwest flight 1226. Two hours into the flight, I tried to go to the bathroom ( I take a blood pressure medicine with diuretic that makes one ‘go’ more often). As I was sitting in row six, I walked to the front lavatory. The flight attendant, named Lora Lee Minton, abruptly stopped me and essentially shouted at me, “Go back! This bath room is occupied, and you cannot stand here.”

Shocked and dumbfounded at this unfriendly behavior, I went back and sat in my seat. Two minutes later, I saw the lavatory door opening and I got up and walked towards the bath room again. The same flight attendant (Lora Lee Minton) screamed at me, “I told you not to go to that bathroom,” and started pushing me into my seat. I was totally confused at this erratic behavior, and told her that I had been taking medicine and I had to go to the toilet. I even tried to walk past Ms.Minton as I was very uncomfortable.

“I told you not to go,” she pushed me into my seat! I was lost. I flew many times but had never experienced a rude and unfriendly behavior like this. Confused and not knowing what to do, I went back and sat in my seat. I saw the pilot came out of the lavatory, walked into the cockpit and closed the door behind him. Later I could use the bathroom.

The sequence of events that followed were more frightening and beyond the scope of any one’s imagination. As the plane landed in Las Vegas , I was escorted by two police officers and was handed over to the FBI. The FBI interrogated me at length and for the first time, I was told that the flight attendant, Ms.Lora Lee Minton, reported that I was causing ‘disturbance’ during the flight. I was also told that when the pilot is out of the cockpit, no one is supposed get up from their seat, till the pilot goes back to his seat. This apparently is a federal law being enforced since 9/11 and no one ever told me, nor was it announced during the flight.

That night I was taken through federal centers for further investigation. I was hand-cuffed, finger printed and was ‘processed’ as a common criminal. I was told repeatedly that my background was checked and I had no criminal record. Even after checking my back ground and even after confirming it by calling my family members (Our two children that live in St Louis and Houston, Texas ) and my professional partner (urologist from Poplar Bluff, Missouri ), I still had to go through the harassment. I was dragged through Federal court buildings that night with hand and ankle cuffs, left in cells for hours before I was interrogated and was threatened repeatedly with abusive language: ‘Shut up,’ ‘I am going to kick your ass,’ to name a few. Finally I was taken to a federal detention center in Las Vegas and was ushered into a large jail cell! I spent the night in jail with 43 prisoners – most of them drug dealers and picked up at street fights!

The next day I went through processing in a federal court building and presented in front of a Federal Judge. The public defender told me that my ‘case’ was decided and I would be released if I pleaded guilty and paid a fine of $2,500. He also told me that I could refuse to plead guilty, contest the judgment and even could win, but could be taking a long time, cost more and might result in multiple trips to Las Vegas.

Exhausted, depressed and completely deflated, I agreed to what ever the public defender suggested and got out after 24 hours of ‘living hell’.

I endured the most horrifying and traumatic 24-hours of my life for a crime I sincerely believe I did not commit. A simple statement by the flight attendant (Lora Lee Minton) in normal tone of voice that I was not supposed to wait in front of the toilet when it was occupied by the pilot, would have saved the ghastly ordeal.

I was told repeatedly by the prison guards, some of the FBI officials (not all of them were rude), the prison inmates who heard my story that the reason I was targeted was because of my skin color (brown) and ethnic background (South Asian, Indian).

When I returned home, I did not feel like lying flat and take the abuse, more so the incident involved not only me but an entire race and ethnic group. I sent my story to local, state and national news papers including all the major Indian news publications. The response was overwhelming: the news papers were very receptive; I received numerous e-mails, letters, phone-calls, sympathy and supportive cards; every one wanted me to ‘fight-it-out’ and ‘not to keep quite and do nothing.’

I did send my story to ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) of Missouri and Nevada , yet I haven’t heard from them yet, though I was told that my experience had merit. I contacted attorneys locally as well as in St Louis and was told that they were looking for proper attorneys that specialize in civil liberties cases; I was told by some that I should not have pleaded guilty and should find eye-witnesses that would testify in my favor.

During 30 years of my stay in America , I never felt so threatened nor my rights so violated as I did that fateful night. ‘You are not guilty until proven otherwise’, the anthem we are made to believe all the time was turned out to be not true; I was guilty until prove my self innocent. I was treated like a guilty person and was never given a chance even to tell my side of the story. Even after the incidence, I am finding it difficult to prove my innocence. I want Southwest Air Lines to realize their mistake and drop charges against me. I did contact Southwest airlines and was informed that they were standing by their stewardess and the issue had no racial profile or bias.

While the year was great and we had a lot of highs there were some pieces that didn’t get the attention that they truly deserved due to Loonwatch not being as well known at the time.

Here are a list of 10 pieces you may have missed but shouldn’t have, also take a look through our archives for any past articles:

Douglas Farah’s Delusional Delight

Douglas Farah

Doug, yet another so-called “investigative consultant” tries to link U.S. Muslim orgs to planet Zorbex, that global superpower operating in perfect coordination yet total secrecy to sneak in an evil empire.

M.Cherif Bassiouni Rips Fake Scholar Robert Spencer

Cherif Bassiouni

Robert Spencer, and his proxies such as Hugh Fitzgerald fail miserably trying to character assassinate M. Cherif Bassiouni, read them get ripped in the process.

Update: Robert Spencer Whines and Wimpers after being Exposed

Robert Spencer: Exposed

Update: Robert Spencer cries “bloody censorship” after he is exposed and the ALA canceled his near platform to spout anti-Muslimisms.

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield’s Double Speak

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield

Rabbi Hirschfield seems like a good guy but on his blog he bizarrely criticizes Muslim objections to an anti-Muslim hate film he himself trashes, as “crying wolf.”

ADL Contradicts its Goals by Supporting Fascist

Abe Foxman’s support of Avigdor Lieberman is quite troubling for a number of reasons, most glaringly for its contradiction to the goals preached by the ADL.

Tawfik Hamid: The Shemp of the Three Stooges

Tawfik Hamid

Previously we wrote about the Three Stooges of Islamophobia: Walid Shoebat, Zachariah Anani, and Kamal Saleem but we forgot about Shemp — Tawfik Hamid.

Steven Emerson: “Wowser”

Steven Emerson likes to pass himself off as a gumshoe Investigative Journalist but his antics reveal that he is a poor imitation of Inspector Gadget.

Update: Freedumb of Speech Summit-Defenders of Delusion

The Freedumb of Speech Summit descended into a predictable Hate Summit, but were you expecting otherwise?

Spate of Islamophobic Gang Attacks on Elderly Muslims of London

Three year old girl, traumatized from watching her grandfather's brutal murder

A spate of racially motivated gang attacks against Muslims culminate in the death of a sixty-seven year old man, who was clubbed to death in front of his now traumatized granddaughter.

Fascist Leaves Daniel Pipes “Elated”

Avigdor Lieberman

Lieberman’s extreme world view and rhetoric has left observers around the world, including many Israelis, shocked and frightened. Not so, Daniel Pipes. Lieberman has him “elated.”

————————————————————————————————–

And here is a free bonus since Rabbi Hirschfield, while having a loonie moment, does not qualify as a loon in our books:

Robert Spencer: Teaming up with Euro-Supremacists Again

Robert Spencer, erstwhile ally of neo-Fascists, friend to advocates of genocide, and all around anti-Muslim is once again basking in the light of his own, made up self-importance.

This time it centers around his recent trip to Germany where he gave a speech at a rally in Berlin.