A good article from Rabbi Yoffie. He discusses why the analogy of the nuns at Auschwitz doesn’t comport with the mosque near Ground Zero.

Auschwitz and the Mosque Near Ground Zero: The Problems with This Analogy

Jewish Americans have generally been more supportive of the Cordoba House project than other Americans. Jews have been denied religious freedom and been the victims of religious discrimination so frequently that their natural sympathies lie with others who now confront these burdens. Nonetheless, even those most firmly committed to building the community center/mosque in lower Manhattan have struggled with the seemingly powerful argument that what happened at Auschwitz in the 1980s is a reason to rethink their position.

This argument goes as follows: A group of Carmelite nuns attempted to establish a convent on the grounds of Auschwitz in the mid-1980s. Pope John Paul II was sensitive to the concerns of Jews, who saw Auschwitz as sacred ground and the convent as an attempt to obscure the memory of the Jewish slaughter that happened there. In 1989, the Pope ordered the Polish nuns off the grounds of Auschwitz to a different location. Therefore, Imam Feisal Rauf should demonstrate similar sensitivity and move the Cordoba House from its current site.

There are two problems with this argument.

The first is that all Holocaust analogies are profoundly suspect. The Holocaust, with Auschwitz as its central symbol, was an endeavor of pure evil, involving a fanatic, obsessive, and single-minded six-year campaign to exterminate an entire people. Words fail us in attempting to describe or explain the Holocaust. We Jews, therefore, rightly discourage others from making comparisons that must ultimately fall short. The Holocaust is analogous to nothing because it is utterly unique.

The second problem is that if there is a lesson to be learned from John Paul’s actions, it is exactly the opposite of what Cordoba House opponents are now claiming.

I agree that Ground Zero is a sacred place. It is a mass grave, the site of a terrible atrocity. One can reasonably argue that anything that detracts from the memory and the message of the site is out of place there, and that a mosque — or any place of worship — might do that.

But that is where the similarities end. The Jewish community was outraged in the 1980s because the convent was located on the grounds of Auschwitz. At the request of the Pope, the convent was then moved to another building across the street, off the grounds but only 600 yards away. The Jewish community was grateful to the Pope for his actions. Jews saw nothing problematic about the convent being only a third of a mile from Auschwitz. What was important was that it was no longer on the grounds of the camp that had been the place of an unprecedented and unthinkable slaughter of Jews.

The Cordoba House, of course, was never to be located at Ground Zero. It is to be two and a half blocks away — close by, but still at a respectable distance, as in the case of the convent after the move, and not only that, in a highly congested urban neighborhood where its presence will be barely noticeable. Just as the Jewish community had no problem with a Carmelite convent that was so close to Auschwitz, so too should it have no problem with a community center/mosque that is so close to Ground Zero. If moving the convent a short distance from the death camp was seen as a step to be applauded, why should a community center/mosque a short distance from Ground Zero be seen as troubling?

For Jews, emotions run deep on the Holocaust, which is burned into our consciousness. But we must not let these emotions be exploited. Twenty years ago, by a short move from sacred ground to secular territory, the dispute over the convent at Auschwitz was resolved. Common sense and a spirit of mutual understanding triumphed. In dealing with plans for Cordoba House, to be constructed in a busy and very worldly section of downtown New York, let us hope that they will triumph once again.

Stephen Colbert

I love Stephen Colbert, the man is a genius! He talks about another instance of Islamophobiapalooza. This time dealing with a rural Muslim community being told by scared residents to dig up the bodies in their cemetary because you know the only thing scarier than a live Muslim is a dead one.

Video:

Rashad Hussain

Rashad Hussain was appointed by President Barack Hussein Obama to be the United States’ second Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). After he was appointed he became the subject of much scrutiny and anti-Muslim rhetoric from right-wing Islamophobes. He was called every name in the book.

Now the American Islamic College (AIC) and the OIC is jointly organizing a conference from September 28-30 on the topic of “Islam and Muslims in America” to be held at the AIC. Rashad Hussein was one of the headline speakers for the conference and his presence was essentially a sure thing considering that his JOB is to be the special envoy to the OIC. The Islamophobe-sphere went buck wild when they heard that Hussain would be a speaker and responded with their usual hate smears calling it a “supremacist gathering,” a “Muslim Brotherhood event,” throwing in all the usual buzz words and the kitchen sink like “Hamas,” “Shariah,” “Khilafah,” yada yada.

In light of these attacks Rashad Hussain canceled his scheduled speech at the conference last minute citing a “scheduling conflict”  according to the emcee (hat tip: Joel).

Are you serious? So at the last minute the Special Envoy to the OIC has a “scheduling conflict”? What possible “scheduling conflict” would keep the special envoy to the OIC from attending a major OIC conference right here in the United States, in fact in his hometown? Did he have another scheduled event at the OIP (Organization of Intimidated Pushovers)?

Where is this guy’s priorities? And why is he kow-towing to the Right-wing hate machine? Why is he submitting to the intimidation and smear tactics that have so successfully exposed the glaring weakness of the Obama administration? Are the higher ups telling him to sit this conference out because it will be bad for PR? Do they and he not realize that this essentially empowers the goons on the far-right that no one in the Muslim community gives the light of day or takes seriously?

This episode reveals a very troubling problem, Rashad Hussain seems to be nothing more than window dressing used by the noodle-kneed Obama administration to create the image that Obama is trying to reach out to the Muslim world.

This intimidation and acquiescence to hate and fear mongering has to stop and if the Obama administration is truly serious about reaching out to the Muslim world he has to go beyond symbolic action and translate that symbolism and usage of pretty words into tangible and concrete results. Pulling the plug at the last minute means you aren’t serious and only furthers the perception that all the talk is just for show.

Bob Beckel and Ahmed Rehab were on Fox Business News’ program Money Rocks with Eric Bolling alongside right-wingers Pamela Geller, David Webb and Fox host Bill Hemmer. It was an interesting program and I am baffled as to why Pamela brought it to our attention by posting it because she got absolutely butchered and exposed! For the longest time we complained that people weren’t using the information in our articles exposing her crazy, wingnut, moonbat, wacko, and lunatic blogging on Atlas Shrugs.

To our dismay she actually started receiving a wider (Tea Party mostly) audience and influence with the big wigs in the Republican party. The instances that she was on TV no one was adequately challenging her with the exception of the Alyona Show, but the past month or so she has been getting challenged in both print and on TV by people who are using the information we have documented on her.

Video:

She gets called out beautifully in the beginning here by Ahmed Rehab who takes a jab at Bolling for saying that Geller is his “good friend,”

Rehab: You just called her your good friend, and I don’t know if you’ve visited her anti-Muslim blog any time recently, Atlas Shrugs, where you can see a video that she posted where she is implying that Muslims have sex with goats, and suggesting they wear Muhammad condoms, I don’t know if you can call her your good friend…

Geller interrupts: That’s a lie, you know it’s a lie.

Rehab: We have a screenshot of that, you’re a lying bigot.

Geller: You don’t have a screenshot of that. [LW: actually Pamela there is a screenshot, click here.]

Rehab: Do you also deny that you put a picture of the Prophet Muhammad with a pig for a face?

Geller: yea, no…that was part of Everybody Draw Muhammad Day…do you condemn…

Rehab: Don’t evade the question, you are one of the most anti-Muslim bigots out on the internet and your blog consistently is filled with anti-Muslim statements…

[talking over]

Bolling: Pam hold on, Pam hold on, go ahead Rehab,

Rehab: Well, Pamela also suggested we should nuke Mecca, and this was done on her blog February 24, 2010.

Geller: I did not say it. [LW: actually you did Pamela, click here.]

Rehab: She also suggested that Obama is an anti-Semite, pimp and Jihadist…

Geller: Oh yeah, uh, I believe that is true.

Rehab: She is a certified loon. She’s a bigot of the highest order and you’re calling her your good friend Eric, so I don’t know how you feel about that now.

Bolling went on to justify his friendship with nut case Pamela Geller saying he “knows her” and then he goes on to talk about his personal experience with the World Trade Center and how he “was there.” He exposes his bias saying he is “angry” with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his group for building their mosque near Ground Zero, which he thinks is so close you can throw a baseball there. Yeah, maybe if you have the arm of Roberto Clemente! Where is Fox getting these people?

Geller tried to strike back at Rehab with her guilt by association smear tactics, trying to bring up CAIR and repeating Hamas as many times as possible in one breathe, but it seems she hyperventilated and was unable to make the point because Rehab straight up asked her, “what does that got to do with the Mosque?” Her response was epic, bumbling idiocy.

Rehab: Pamela’s at the forefront of those who are claiming this is a victory mosque at Ground Zero, which is a blatant lie, so I am asking her right now, what can she tell us in terms of truth that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf had anything to do with hijackers in a plane?

Bolling: hang on I want to bring in the panel.

Bolling then proceeds to bring in the panel. He immediately hits up Beckel by playing a clip of him saying, “we have to get over 9/11.” They discuss that for a while and he clarifies that what he is saying is that “we shouldn’t forget 9/11″ or “stop grieving” but that we can’t live like it “happened yesterday.”

He also laid into Pamela Geller saying,

Beckel: There are also a lot of moderate Islamists…but you wouldn’t know that from your friend’s (Pamela Geller) web page, who accused the President of the United States of being anti-Semitic which is as about ridiculous a thing I’ve ever heard.

Bolling then shifted to Rehab and asked him his thoughts. Rehab defended Beckel, but it then descended into a free for all talk over and Rehab was unable to answer the original question from Bolling. Bill Hemmer, the totally credulous Fox News presenter tried to stick up for Geller, complimenting her on her performance on 60 minutes and then saying he just found out that “they [Muslims] are praying.” What a douche.

C’mon, seriously Bill, you didn’t know that Muslims were praying in that building?

Hemmer: What I did not know until last night, they’re praying,(pause) inside that building today. I don’t think that’s something that most people even realize.

Beckel: What’s wrong with that?

Hemmer: I’m not saying there is anything wrong with that…there is already a mosque there.

Beckel: There is also a strip joint there.

Now it gets interesting, with quite the exchange between Geller and Beckel. Geller essentially says Beckel is in league with terrorists, supporting them and in a most condescending way says, “you are carrying water” for them. This obviously infuriates Beckel, and he tells Geller to watch what she says. He makes a comment that she is a woman, obviously implying that if she weren’t he would probably knock her teeth out for saying that he was a terrorist water boy. Geller replied in her usual shrill way by saying that Beckel was a women hater. Classic.

Geller: I would like to address Mr. Beckel’s point, I don’t know why you are carrying water for the most radical, intolerant ideology in the world today, there have been 20,000 documented radical Islamic attacks since 9/11, each one with the imprimatur of a Muslim cleric.

Beckel: You better be very careful, you’re a woman, you better be very careful for who you say I carry water for because you have no idea what you’re talking about and don’t start putting me in the middle of your crap!

Geller: Don’t point at me.

Beckel: I’ll point at you all I want.

Geller: You’re a misogynist.

Beckel: You got yourself 15 minutes of fame because you’re picking on a bunch of Muslims.

Geller: You’re picking on a bunch of women. You’re a women hater.

Beckel: A women hater?  A women hater?

Geller: Yes. Look how you are talking to me. It’s outrageous.

Beckel: You are nuts!

Geller: I’m not nuts.

Geller looked pathetic when she said that. “I’m not nuts.” Pamela, you’re nuttier than a bag of Planters roasted peanuts.

Bolling shifted topics and asked Rehab about Rauf being a bad landlord, Rehab responded by saying this is an evasion from the topic.

Rehab: Well, again, what you are trying to do here is evade the central issue which is the principle position of whether we can build a center there or not and whether we should or not and going back to Mr. Beckel’s point we shouldn’t forget about 9/11 but we should move beyond the politicization and the exploitation and memory of 9/11 for personal political gain or for ratings or for notoriety like your certified bigot friend there Pamela Geller is doing.

Geller: Unbelievable.

Man was Geller getting exposed. She is nuts, regardless of her protestations. She hates Muslims, the evidence is there for all to read, and when she is challenged on it she resorts to lying and saying it is not there.

The video ends succinctly with Rehab getting the last word responding to one of David Webb’s only points,

Rehab: I am not saying that they should build because we have the right to build…I am saying they should build because it is the right thing to do

Webb: You just did.

Rehab: …I am telling you it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to build a moderate center that can bring people together, that actually stands against the very ideology of AlQaeda. You know, building this center is the worst thing that could happen to Bin Laden, that’s not why we are doing it, we’re doing it because that’s the best thing we can do for our country.

Bolling: [Laughing] Those are some fairly interesting things you had to say. We’ll bring you back though, we appreciate your time.

Rehab: For interesting things visit Atlas Shrugs, you’ll find a lot of interesting things there.

Bolling and Geller shared a strange and out of place laugh towards the end of the segment, condescendingly and mockingly laughing at Rehab’s final point that this mosque is the best thing we can do for our country. Why is that funny?

Is it because it so shatters your view and perspective on this issue that you are just unwilling to countenance it at all? Even being outnumbered 4-2 by the right-wingers both Beckel and Rehab held it down and destroyed the hate and illogic coming from the anti-Mosque crowd. My last request is that I hope someone will auto tune this video!

From accused murderer to member of Congress?

BY JUSTIN ELLIOTT

In a race that has largely been flying under the national radar, a former Marine who killed two unarmed Iraqi prisoners in 2004 and who has made the threat of Islam and the “ground zero mosque” centerpieces of his campaign has a real shot at being elected to Congress.

Republican Ilario Pantano, 39, is taking on incumbent Mike McIntyre, a seven-term conservative Democrat, in North Carolina’s 7th District, which takes in the state’s southeast corner. If Pantano wins, he would surely be one of the most compelling — and right-wing — members of Congress. He told Salon in an interview Friday, for example, that he welcomes the endorsement of the far-right blogger and anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller.

Though there haven’t been recent polls on the race, two local political analysts told Salon that Pantano has a real shot, and the National Republican Congressional Committee recently started buying ads in the race after naming Pantano one of its top-tier “Young Guns.” While McIntyre has represented it since 1997, the 7th District actually voted for John McCain by 5 points in 2008.

Pantano’s biography has made him an irresistible subject for newspaper and magazine profiles even before this campaign (see, for example, this New York magazine cover story) and would almost certainly make him a darling of the neoconservative wing of the GOP if he is elected.

Pantano, who describes himself as a “born-again Christian and a born-again Southerner,” grew up in Manhattan, where he went to a fancy private high school on scholarship and then on to the Marines during the first Gulf War. When he got back, he went to NYU and worked as a trader at Goldman Sachs for a few years before becoming a consultant. He was in the city on Sept. 11, and that’s when he decided to rejoin the Marines. He was sent to Iraq.

It was there that, in a disputed April 2004 incident south of Baghdad, Pantano killed two unarmed Iraqi prisoners, Hamaady Kareem and Tahah Ahmead Hanjil. The incident occurred after the two men had been arrested as suspected insurgents and Pantano directed them to search their own car. According to Pantano’s version of events, the men moved toward him in a threatening way and he opened fire in self-defense, shooting up to 60 rounds and killing both of them. He then put a sign next to the bodies with a Marine slogan: “No better friend, no worse enemy.” Pantano told New York magazine: “I believed that by firing the number of rounds that I did, I was sending a message” to other potential insurgents.

In 2005, Pantano was formally accused of premeditated murder, partly on the strength of testimony of other Marines present during the incident who believed it was not justified. But after a series of hearings, the military brass agreed with Pantano’s version of events and he was cleared of the murder charges.

By that time, Pantano’s ordeal had became a cause célèbre among conservative media like the Washington Times, which reported on the ins and outs of the trial. His cause was championed by talk radio host Michael Savage and others who felt the U.S. military had no business prosecuting one of its own over the killings of Iraqis. Capitalizing on that publicity, Pantano wrote with a co-author a book on his experiences, “Warlord: No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy.” On the ensuing book tour, he charmed many of his interviewers, including Jon Stewart.

Pantano took some criticism last week for editing a reference to the killings out of news clips he was using in a campaign ad. But one of the remarkable things about the campaign in North Carolina this year is that the murder charges are not only not an issue, but have barely even been talked about.

David McLennan, a political scientist at North Carolina’s Peace College, told Salon that the issue could backfire for McIntyre, the Democratic incumbent, particularly in a district with a large ex-military population.

“There are some people in the district who consider Pantano to be a hero. For McIntyre to raise that issue is just way too delicate,” McLennan says.

Some of the only criticism of Pantano’s past has ironically come from the man he beat in the GOP primary, fellow Iraq war vet Will Breazeale. He told the Daily Beast after his primary loss that he considers Pantano “dangerous,” adding: “I’ve taken prisoners in Iraq and there’s no excuse for what he did.”

Asked by Salon if he is surprised that his critics have largely ignored the Iraq incident, Pantano was defiant. “If they want to question my war effort — if they think that’s prudent, they can go ahead … I’ve served my country proudly in two wars.”

His campaign has focused to an unusual extent on opposing the Park51 Islamic community center project in New York, which he refers to as a “Martyr Marker” that’s really about “territorial conquest.”

“If they think that the threat of inflaming the Muslim street is enough for Americans to back down, they’re deluding themselves,” he said. “We have our own street to worry about being inflamed.”

Or as he wrote in a Daily Caller Op-Ed over the summer that connected the mosque organizers to the threat from Iran and the Gaza flotilla:

If Mosques go up like mushrooms everywhere there is a bombing or a shooting we will create a perverse incentive, not a deterrent. This mosque at Ground Zero will serve as a big Trojan trophy; and we are welcoming it?

This kind of rhetoric has attracted the enthusiastic support of Pamela Geller, the blogger who leads a group called Stop the Islamization of America and who played a key role in creating the “ground zero mosque” controversy. Most candidates might tread carefully when dealing with a Geller (among the conspiracies she subscribes to is a theory that Malcolm X is President Obama’s real father).

But not Pantano.

Geller’s endorsement is proudly reprinted on his website. “I very much appreciate Pamela Geller’s endorsement,” Pantano told Salon, calling her a “patriot.”

He said he had no qualms about speaking at an anti-mosque rally on Sept. 11 near ground zero earlier this month with Geller and other controversial figures like Geert Wilders, a Dutch parliamentarian who advocates restricting civil liberties for Muslims.

Says Pantano of the mosque issue and his campaign: “I see this as a war for the heart of our country.”

Here he is speaking at ground zero, introduced by Geller:

After we published our article on The Connection Between Zionism and Organized Islamophobia — The Facts, we had some knee jerk responses by people who obviously hadn’t read the article claiming that we were dabbling in anti-Semitism. This was of course a wrong headed and false charge as many have since admitted and now a leading Jewish magazine has opined as much.

Some Zionist Groups Stoke Fear Of Islam for Political Profit

Opinion

By Matthew Duss

After the last several months, it should be clear that the controversy over the Park 51 Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero is about more than sensitivity to the families of the 9/11 victims and the sacredness of the site where their loved ones were murdered. In places as far from Lower Manhattan as Murfreesboro, Tenn., and Temecula, Calif., Muslim houses of worship, and the people who pray in them, have come under attack by conservative activists as representing an American beachhead for Muslim extremism.

Whether it’s Newt Gingrich peddling false stories of “creeping sharia” (strict Islamic law) to an audience of very serious people at the American Enterprise Institute, or the Washington Times running endless editorials and op-eds from conspiracy theorists like Frank Gaffney warning that President Obama “may actually still be a Muslim,” or Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney shamelessly and falsely asserting that Park 51 leader Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has “terror-related connections,” it’s clear that quite a few conservative elites see political profit in stoking Americans’ fear of Islam.

Such hostility toward Muslims is unfortunately not marginal in the pro-Israel community — unless one is prepared to define the huge annual policy conference of one of Washington’s foremost lobbies as “marginal.” At an AIPAC conference in March 2009, to take just one example, terrorism expert Steve Emerson spent 40 minutes stoking the worst fears of the mostly elderly attendees with a talk called “Tentacles of Terror: The Global Reach of Islamic Radicalism.” It could just as easily have been called “Scaring the Living Crap Out of Bubbe and Zayde.” As long as Jews are encouraged to believe that scary Muslims are hiding under every American bed, the idea is perpetuated that support for the Jewish state is a zero-sum contest between favoring Israel and favoring Arabs and Muslims. For too many American Jews, smearing Islam is seen as a legitimate expression of Zionism.

Groups like The Israel Project, the Middle East Media Research Institute and Middle East Forum seem to exist for no other reason than to spotlight the very worst aspects of Muslim societies. Magazines like Commentary and the Weekly Standard regularly traffic in the crudest stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims, and promote the harshest measures for dealing with them. Musing over the appropriateness of targeting Palestinian civilians during the Gaza conflict, Standard contributing editor Michael Goldfarb wrote approvingly, “To wipe out a man’s entire family, it’s hard to imagine that doesn’t give his colleagues at least a moment’s pause.”

Martin Kramer, a fellow at the Washington Institute of Near East Policy, president of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and frequent AIPAC panelist, took things even further, suggesting that Israel’s siege on Gaza, could, by depressing population growth, “crack the culture of martyrdom, which demands a constant supply of superfluous young men.”

In 2007, in what could be seen as a precursor to the current uproar over the Park 51 Islamic cultural center, Middle East Forum Director Daniel Pipes played a key role in flaming controversy over the Khalil Gibran International Academy, a planned New York City public school emphasizing the study of Arabic language and culture. Pipes asserted that such a school represented a potential threat simply by virtue of teaching Arabic.

It would be wrong, however, to pretend that these sorts of smears have been the work solely of conservatives. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a liberal who promotes himself as Israel’s leading public defender, regularly rehearses the most clownish calumnies against Israel’s adversaries, real and perceived. Citing the Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini’s collaboration with the Nazis, Dershowitz wrote, “the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust.” The obviously ahistorical stupidity of that claim aside, it hardly needs pointing out that a similar attempt to lay collective blame upon Jews would be immediately — and rightly — condemned, by Dershowitz and others.

Hatred of Arabs has also had a home in one of America’s oldest and best-respected liberal magazines, The New Republic, for over three decades, courtesy of owner and editor-in-chief Marty Peretz, who never seems to tire of identifying ways in which Arab society is “hidebound and backward,” as he wrote in 2007. Observing the devastation in Iraq, Peretz wrote: “I actually believe that Arabs are feigning outrage when they protest what they call American (or Israeli) ‘atrocities.’ They are not shocked at all by what in truth must seem to them not atrocious at all. It is routine in their cultures.” Peretz reiterated that view in September of this year. “Frankly, Muslim life is cheap, especially for Muslims,” he wrote. “This is a statement of fact, not value.”

While it’s tempting to dismiss Peretz as a racist old kook, he does serve as editor-in-chief of a major magazine, and he has been able to help define the boundaries of acceptable liberal discourse for 30 years. And he has chosen through those years to place the most retrograde anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bigotry — including constant denials of Palestinian nationhood — within those boundaries.

It wasn’t so long ago that Jews in America were targets of similar slander and knee-jerk opposition. Liberal American Jews have been at the forefront of all of America’s struggles against bigotry, but they need to do a better job of calling out the hate in their own communities. Moderate Muslims are often called upon to condemn the extreme rhetoric of their co-religionists. It is not too much, at long last, to call upon moderate Zionists to do the same.

Matthew Duss is National Security Editor at the Center for American Progress.

Hate for Muslims doesn’t exist? Spencer would probably blame it on Muslims.

Severed pig’s head dumped at Cambridge mosque

A severed pig’s head has been left outside a mosque in Cambridge – triggering alarm among the city’s Muslims. Families found the head on the steps of the place of worship on Monday night on their way to prayers. An emergency meeting was due to be held last night after the incident at the Shah Jalal Bangladeshi Community House in Darwin Drive.

A worshipper at the mosque, who did not wish to be named, told the News: “It is a terrible insult. There are about 40 families who go to the centre and everyone is highly emotional at the moment. It was left there between 8.15pm and 9pm. Some families found it as they went for prayer at about 9pm. It was a very ugly sight. This was a nasty and appalling thing to do. We thought we had good relations with the community around here.”

Some Muslims believe the pig’s head attack could have been triggered after an application to increase the number of worshippers at the mosque prompted objections from some residents.

(via. Islamophobia-watch)

Daniel Pipes accuses Obama of enforcing Sharia law

Over at the Washington Times Daniel Pipes opines that he found Pastor Terry Jones’ plan to ban the Qur’an “distasteful”. But actual the object of his attack is the Obama administration, who Pipes claims capitulated to the threat of “Muslim violence” when they persuaded Jones to call off his book-burning stunt. Pipes explains: “That violence stems from Islamic law, Shariah, which insists that Islam, and the Koran in particular, enjoy a privileged status. Islam ferociously punishes anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, who trespasses against Islam’s sanctity.”

Pipes concludes with the following charge against the Obama administration: “Its pressure on Mr. Jones further eroded freedom of speech about Islam and implicitly established Islam’s privileged status in the United States, whereby Muslims may insult others but not be insulted. This moves the country toward dhimmitude, a condition whereby non-Muslims acknowledge the superiority of Islam. Finally, Mr. Obama, in effect, enforced Islamic law, a precedent that could lead to other forms of compulsory Shariah compliance.”

Pipes has found himself rather sidelined recently by more newsworthy Islamophobes like Pamela Geller or Newt Gingrich. Maybe this is Pipes’ attempt to show he is still a major player when it comes to whipping up hysteria against the US Muslim community.

(via. Reuters)

U.S. monitoring 11 sites for possible discrimination against Muslims

The U.S. Justice Department has said it is monitoring 11 cases of potential land-use discrimination against Muslims, a sharp increase in cases under a federal law designed to protect religious minorities in zoning disputes.

In a report on discrimination against mosques, synagogues, churches and other religious sites, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said on Tuesday it has monitored 18 cases of possible bias against Muslims over the past 10 years.

Eight of those have been opened since May, around the time when plans for a Muslim community center and mosque near the former site of the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan seized media attention and caused a national political uproar. “This fact is a sober reminder that, even in the 21st century, challenges to true religious liberty remain,” the report said.

The report made no mention of the planned Muslim center in New York, known as Cordoba House. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to discuss monitoring activities but stressed that no investigations were under way in those cases.

Everyone keeps claiming that Robert Spencer is this big time “scholar.” Yet, it seems that he could care less when it comes to the facts. In a recent rant about the Chicago man who was arrested after planting what he thought was a real bomb in a dumpster outside of Wrigley Field, Spencer penned this:

Got to watch out for those “Chicago men,” especially during yet another long summer of frustration at Wrigley, as Sweet Lou Piniella has ridden off into the sunset with no end in sight for the Cub Fan’s frustration. It would drive anyone to plant a bomb, now, wouldn’t it? Wouldn’t it?

He seems to lament the fact that the media, quite responsibly, called the suspect, Sami Hassoun, as a “Chicago man,” rather than identifying him by his religion. Presumably, looking at his Facebook page, he is Muslim since he did have a status saying “eid mubarak.” Still, Spencer seemed to not like the fact that the news reported him as he is: a Chicago man.

Once again, however, Robert Spencer’s “scholarship” shows in his total disregard for the facts…Read the rest at SpencerWatch.

A self-declared Christian Terrorist, who refers to himself as a the “Christian Osama Bin Laden” was arrested for plotting to bomb an abortion clinic.

The article from Jasmine Sawarda has some interesting and on point commentary:

So-called “Christian Terrorist” Arrested for Alleged Plot to Bomb a Women’s Clinic

Published September 12, 2010 by: Jasmine Sawarda

Maybe Someone Should Tell Justin Carl Moose that “All Terrorists Are Muslim”

According to Fox News Affiliate WCCB, Concord, North Carolina resident Justin Carl Moose was arrested for using a social networking website to call for the destruction of a women’s clinic in the state,

and for allegedly meeting with an unknown individual to advise him or her about how to make and use explosives to target and destroy a women’s clinic that also provides abortion services.

NBC News Affiliate WECT goes into further detail in regards to Moose’s use of the social networking site, Facebook. Moose allegedly posted a caption under one of his pictures that says “whatever you may think about me, you’re probably right. Extremist, Radical, Fundamentalist…? Yep! Terrorists…? Well…. I prefer the term ‘freedom Fighter’. ‘End abortion by any means necessary and at any cost’. ‘Save a live, Shoot an abortionist’ “.

News 14 Concord goes into further detail, noting the following alleged quotes attributed to Moose in the Complaint filed against him:

“There are few problems in life that can’t be solved with the proper application of high explosives ”.

Said he was part of the “Army of God”.

Moose also called himself the “Christian counterpart of Osama bin Laden”.

In addition to the above statements, Moose also linked a website to his Facebook wall that has a recipe to make a bomb.

In fact, WCCB goes above and beyond the call of duty and posts a disclaimer at the end of their report that states a “Criminal Complaint is a probable cause charging document. Every defendant accused of committing a federal crime has a Constitutional right to be indicted by a federal grand jury. The charges are only allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless or until proven guilty.” WCCB goes even one step further and makes not one mention of the fact that Moose considers himself to be a Christian, as evident by his numerous Facebook posts.

Roman Conaway Facebook page (Riverfronttimes)

Roman Conaway, a veteran in the US army with explosives training is an ardent Christian, he lists the Bible as the “only book” he has ever read. He has made anti-Islam and anti-government threats and in the lead up to his most recent standoff with the police in which he took his wife hostage he made crazy, threatening calls to St.Louis area Muslims prompting a visit from the FBI.

This is a manifestation of a possible threat we have been talking about for months now, the convergence of “armed and loaded” veterans who do not leave their animus towards Islam and Muslims on the battlefield but also bring it home, either joining groups in the anti-Muslim movement or acting as lone wolves. In this instance we had the overlapping of anti-Muslim and anti-Obama/government feelings, an actualization that should make the Department of Homeland Security look seriously at updating their document on the Rise of Right-Wing Extremism by including anti-Muslim groups.

Sweden Democrats' Leader

The big news from Europe recently has been the somewhat surprise victory of the Sweden Democrats, a group with roots in Nazism that is thoroughly anti-Islam and anti-Immigrant with views parallel to those of Geert Wilders. This victory is no surprise to those analyzing events in Europe where the general trend has been a reassertion of nativist rhetoric and policies coupled with anti-Muslim/Islam parties emerging victorious.

Russia TV has a good article on this trend,

Austria’s far right riding anti-Islamic wave in elections

Far-right parties are boosting their influence across Europe amid anti-Islamic agendas and calls for tougher immigration laws.

Such rhetoric has helped elect the Sweden Democrats to parliament for the first time. Now the right-wing Austrian Freedom Party is fueling nationalism in its campaign, hoping for resurgence this weekend.

The “Bye Bye Mosque” game was released by the Freedom Party as part of its bid for election into regional government in Styria – Austria’s second largest province – and the game’s message has hit a raw nerve.

The aim is simple: take aim and shoot down as many new mosques as you can, as they rise relentlessly above Austria’s Alpine skyline. If you are not quick enough, the country is Islamized.

“We are defending our rights, our traditions and our culture. We do not want to be dissolved into Islam, nor do we want there to be parallel Islamic societies in our country,” states Dr. Gerhard Kurzmann, a Freedom Party Candidate.

Within 24 hours, the game received more than 200,000 web hits.

Within a week it was banned.

[Update:] The real Sweden turns out to support its minorities, reassert its values and demonstrate against the Sweden “Democrats” (hat tip: Rob):

Mano Bakh

Temecula, California has been the scene of another mosque controversy. This is the place where mosque opponents called for protesters to bring dogs to their demonstration during Friday prayers. This time some vocal residents don’t want the mosque in Temecula for all the same reasons that we have heard repeated over and over throughout the country: Islam wants to take over, Muslims cannot be trusted, they want to impose Sharia’ law on us.

Now a group of Temecula residents opposed to the mosque want to separate Islam and Sharia’. Can you say Ignorance? Imagine if a group opposed a Synagogue being built and gave the reason as being their opposition to the Halacha? Imagine if they made it a condition for building a Synagogue that Judaism be stripped of its laws? That wouldn’t fly.

What these residents don’t realize and are being misinformed about is that Islam and Sharia’ are closely linked. When a Muslim prays, fasts, gives charity, goes on pilgrimage he or she is following Sharia. But try and explain that to Mano Bakh who thinks the five pillars have nothing to do with Sharia’. My favorite quote from Bakh,

“I lost Iran to Islam. I don’t want to lose my second country, ever,” he said.

How ridiculous! Islam has been present in Iran for over 1300 years. It has been a majority Muslim nation for an equally long time. His quote that he “lost Iran to Islam” is highly pretentious, he doesn’t own Iran, and unless he is over a thousand years old he hasn’t “lost” it either.

TEMECULA: Group trying to separate Islam religion from Sharia law

ANTI-MOSQUE LECTURE ATTENDED BY HUNDREDS OF AREA RESIDENTS

Members of a Southwest County group opposed to plans for a mosque in Temecula explained why they have concerns about the project during a lecture Monday night in Temecula’s community recreation center.

According to those who spoke, the religion of Islam is not the problem and they rejected the contention that they are religious bigots.

They said their primary concern is Sharia law, which they defined as a set of rules that govern the lives of Muslims and that require them to impose that law on non-Muslims.

The speakers view Sharia law as incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and the American way of life.

“Praying to Allah should be the only focus,” said Jacqueline Le Beau, a Murrieta author who said the group wants to separate Islam from Sharia, which, she said, was being “legitimized” under the cover of religion.

The other speakers at the lecture, attended by hundreds of residents, included local authors who have written books critical of Islam, a pastor from Simi Valley and a Temecula man, George Rombach, who is working to get a city ordinance passed that would prohibit an organization from calling itself a religion if it advocates terrorism, slavery, gender inequality and other beliefs that clash with the U.S. Constitution.

Rombach, during his time at the microphone, said the ordinance is not focused on any one religion or organization, noting that the Ku Klux Klan and the Branch Davidians attempted to hide behind religion.

The mosque project is being proposed by the Islamic Center of Temecula Valley, a group of Southwest County Muslims that says its been saving for years to build a house of worship.

For the last 10 years, the group has been meeting in a business park in western Temecula.

The plans for the mosque, slated for land in a rural community in the northeast part of the city, are scheduled to go before the Planning Commission in mid-November if a traffic study is completed on time.

The imam of the center, Mahmoud Harmoush, issued a statement about Monday’s lecture, saying that the group —- Concerned American Citizens —- does not represent the people of Murrieta and Temecula Valley.

“The out-of-town, anti-Islam group has demonstrated their heat and bigotry during the July 30, 2010, demonstration, and now they are demonstrating their ignorance of Islam,” he wrote in an e-mail to The Californian.

The demonstration, a rally in front of the center’s offices, was one of the first salvos against the mosque.

“It is clear that they do not represent the people of Murrieta and Temecula Valley, nor do they represent the religious community with such intolerant behavior,” he wrote.

The Simi Valley pastor, Kevin Dieckilman, said that before he became a member of the clergy, he was a home builder, in charge of checking foundations.

Weaving an analogy from his life experience, Dieckilman said the U.S. has a foundation influenced by Christian ideals.

In contrast, he said, Islam is built on a foundation of laws and ideals that spur people to “strap bombs on children” and go on “shooting rampages.”

“I have no problem with building a mosque in any city in America, but first, let’s check that foundation,” he said.

According to Dieckilman, there have been people in Southwest County who have said that if the center builds the mosque, they will try and convert the Muslims to Christianity.

“Do any of you raise chickens?” he asked. “Would you rather convert the fox outside or inside the hen house?”

Mano Bakh, a Wildomar man who has been one of the most active in the fight against the mosque, closed the lecture by noting that the five pillars of Islam, the core tenets of the religion, have nothing to do with Sharia law.

He used as examples the rules of women covering their faces with veils and cab drivers refusing to allow passengers carrying alcohol in their luggage.

He said those are examples of Sharia law, the rules that cover everything in the life of a Muslim and the rules, that he said, provide a sharp contrast with equal rights for women, human rights in general and freedom of religion, the core beliefs of the U.S.

Recalling his fight against Islam while he lived in Iran, Bakh appeared to get choked up.

“I lost Iran to Islam. I don’t want to lose my second country, ever,” he said.

Following the lecture, Don Parsley, a Murrieta resident, reflected on the message shared by the group, the idea that the religion of Islam could be separated from Sharia law.

“It’s a tough subject,” he said, adding that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 makes it legally difficult to stop a religious group from building a house of worship.

Last week, the city of Walnut was sued for allegedly violating that act by denying a Buddhist temple a land-use permit.

Call staff writer Aaron Claverie at 951-676-4315, ext. 2624.

Eugene Robinson picks apart the right-wing’s new scare tactic.

Sharia as the new red menace?

By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Boy, I really hate it when American judges try to impose harsh Islamic sharia law. You know, with all those grisly lashings, stonings and beheadings. What’s that you say? No such thing is happening, and you wonder where I got such a crazy idea? Why, Newt Gingrich told me.

On Saturday, speaking at the conservative Values Voter Summit, Gingrich issued a thunderous call for action against an imminent threat that exists only in his fevered imagination — or, perhaps, in his political machinations.

“We should have a federal law that says sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States,” Gingrich declared, to a standing ovation.

Okay, but would this include Judge Judy? Because I’ve always suspected that when she gets really mad, and she snaps the heads off both the plaintiff and the defendant, she might be slipping a little sharia into the American subconscious — you know, preparing an unsuspecting nation for the real deal. Maybe we need another law that covers fake judges on daytime television, with punishments that begin with flogging.

But seriously, folks, Newt says we have to halt the insidious encroachment of sharia law, and we have to halt it here and now. In July, speaking at the American Enterprise Institute, he went on at great length about the supposed sharia menace, which he sees as part of a “stealth” campaign to impose Islam on all of us.

“Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence,” Gingrich said at AEI. “But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad, and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state, which is to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of sharia.”

He threw in a perfunctory disclaimer — that there is “a sharp distinction between those Muslims who live in the modern world and those Muslims who would radically change the modern world” — and then proceeded with a speech that essentially paints Islam as the new Red Menace. The “stealth jihadis,” I suppose, must be like the “known communists” on the list in Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s hand.

Along the way, in the July speech, Gingrich painted liberals as a bunch of fellow travelers. “How we don’t have some kind of movement in this country on the left that understands that sharia is a direct mortal threat to virtually every value that the left has is really one of the most interesting historical questions,” he said.

Where to begin? First, I guess, by stating the obvious: There is no left-of-center movement dedicated to fighting the steady, stealthy insinuation of sharia into America’s legal system because no such thing is happening. Gingrich invents an enemy and then demands to know why others haven’t sallied forth to slay it.

Gingrich and the Islamophobes have found one solitary case to bolster their “sharia is here” theory. In June 2009, a family court judge in Hudson County, N.J., denied a restraining order to a woman who testified that her husband, a Muslim, had forced her to have non-consensual sex. Judge Joseph Charles Jr. said he did not believe the man “had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault” his wife because he was acting in a way that was “consistent with his practices.”

The judge was clearly in error, as a state appeals court two months ago reversed his decision. The man’s religious beliefs, the court ruled, do not exempt him from state laws. Thus ended the one and only instance of stealth sharia that anyone has been able to find.

Andrew Silow-Carroll, the editor in chief of the New Jersey Jewish News, cited that case in a column last month blasting Gingrich’s “sharia-phobia.” Silow-Carroll pointed out two things: First, the system worked — the judge made a boneheaded call, and he was overturned. Second, our system already allows some civil matters — but not crimes — to be settled through other means of arbitration. “Among those alternative mechanisms is the beit din, or rabbinic law court,” Silow-Carroll wrote. “Every day, Jews go before batei din to arbitrate real estate deals, nasty divorces and business disputes.”

If Newt were aware of this, would he blow a gasket? Somehow, I doubt it. His objection seems to be faith-specific.

And his purpose seems to be political. If Muslim-bashing draws a rise — and apparently it does — then he’s not going to be outdone. Watch out, Judge Judy. He may be coming for you next.

eugenerobinson@washpost.com

Let’s not pretend that the resolution on Islam that the Texas State Board of Education is considering is about balance in textbook coverage of the world’s major religions. While its final lines sound reasonable – “reject future prejudicial Social Studies submissions” that have “significant inequalities of coverage space-wise” or that reflect bias “by demonizing or lionizing” one religion over others – the rest of it is clearly not about fairness. It is about fear – specifically, fear of Muslims, including, presumably, the numerous Texas Muslims among the board’s constituents.

If the resolution were really motivated by concern for various religions, we might expect it to at least mention them. But it names only two traditions, Islam and Christianity, which it presupposes are in conflict. Its first line complains that “pro-Islamic/anti-Christian bias has tainted some past Texas Social Studies textbooks.” It later objects that “pro-Islamic/anti-Christian half-truths, selective disinformation, and false editorial stereotypes still roil some Social Studies textbooks nationwide.” In its rhetoric, the terms “pro-Islamic” and “anti-Christian” go hand in hand; whatever is “pro-Islamic” is by definition “anti-Christian.”

The evidence the resolution provides is unconvincing. It asserts that some textbooks devote more coverage to Islam than to Christianity and that they often play down negative aspects of Islam but emphasize negative aspects of Christianity. Others have observed that these arguments misrepresent the textbooks in question, sometimes egregiously so. The more remarkable fact is that the resolution’s complaints focus on 1999 editions that do not even circulate in Texas classrooms anymore. The textbooks actually in use reflect considerable effort to be fair.

Elsewhere, the resolution relies on an American Textbook Council report that is disturbingly anti-Islamic. That report adopts a “clash of civilizations” model and ignores the diversity within Islam, ultimately concluding that “Islamic values” are “not conducive” to values such as “the rule of law, constitutional democracy, and a market economy.” In other words, it implies, Islam in its very essence is incompatible with American-style freedom. Board members should look elsewhere for reliable information about Islam.

The resolution warns that “more such discriminatory treatment of religion may occur as Middle Easterners buy into the U.S. public school textbook oligopoly,” referring to the Dubai royal family’s investment in a major publisher. One might reasonably doubt such a correlation. Few would argue that Fox News is unduly sympathetic to Islam, even with a Saudi prince as the second largest shareholder of its parent company.

This charge is important, however, because it points to the motivation of the resolution’s chief proponent, failed school board candidate Randy Rives. Rives recently cautioned that dangerous outsiders might try to control America, using textbooks as their tool. “If you can control or influence our educational system, then you can start taking over the minds of our young people.” He predicted that problems would increase as “more and more Moslems’ [sic] money is pumped into buying textbooks.”

In short, this resolution appears to be motivated not by a desire for balanced treatment of Islam but by ill-founded anxiety about a Muslim takeover of America. It is the same sort of anti-Islamic sentiment that has manifested itself so often in recent weeks. It is driven by half-truths, selective disinformation and false editorial stereotypes.

Most Texans likely agree that textbooks should treat religions fairly and accurately. If anything, students would benefit from more attention to religion. Religious literacy is essential for the smooth functioning of a pluralistic democracy in a shrinking world. Greater religious literacy would make paranoid proposals such as this resolution less likely to gain traction. Let’s hope the board votes it down.

Mark A. Chancey is chair of the Department of Religious Studies in Dedman College of Humanities and Sciences at Southern Methodist University. His e-mail address is mchancey@smu.edu.

Kevin Fisher has been a staunch and vocal opponent to the planned Murfreesboro, Tennessee Islamic Cultural Center. In this video he responds quite strangely to a normal greeting from documentary film maker, Eric Allen Bell.

VIDEO: Mosque opponent hospitalized following verbal dispute with filmmaker

A well-known opponent of the proposed Islamic Center of Murfreesboro was hospitalized over the weekend following a verbal confrontation with a documentary filmmaker at a Tea Party event, all of which was caught on tape.

Mosque opponent Kevin Fisher can be seen — in a video posted on Youtube by documentarian Eric Allen Bell — telling Murfreesboro Police dispatchers that he was being “racially harassed.”

Watch the video by clicking here.

The video was recorded by Bell Saturday at the Rutherford County Tea Party’s Constitution Day event. It also shows Fisher asking a Murfreesboro Police dispatcher if he could “strike” Bell because he is within “arms reach.”

Bell, who is documenting the controversy surrounding the mosque, contends the only thing he said to Fisher was “Hi Kevin.” The documentary is tentatively entitled “Not Welcome.”

The latest controversy comes at a time of intense debate over the proposed mosque on Veals Road at Bradyville Pike. Hundreds packed into the Rutherford County courthouse last week to make their opinions about the mosque known.

Fisher, who could not immediately be reached for comment Monday, announced the same day that he and others had filed a lawsuit against the county in reference to the planning commission’s handling of the Islamic center. He is represented by attorney Joe Brandon, Jr.

The lawsuit called for a temporary injunction prohibiting further work at the mosque site until the issue could be resolved. Rutherford County Chancellor Robert Corlew denied the request for a restraining order to halt the construction Friday.

A Computer Aided Dispatch report on file at the Murfreesboro Police Department shows Fisher called 911 at 4:18 p.m. Saturday in reference to being “diabetic and feeling faint.” Fisher, a scheduled guest speaker at the event, also told the dispatcher that he was surrounded by four people who were reportedly harassing him.

The video recorded by Bell shows Fisher walking towards the Rutherford County Courthouse on the Public Square. Bell approaches Fisher and says “Hi Kevin.” Fisher responds “You are racially harassing me, leave me alone.”

Later, while on his cell phone, Fisher told dispatchers he was feeling “oppressed. I’m the only African American here …” Someone could be heard laughing in the background after Fisher made the statement.

Fisher then asked the dispatcher if he had the right to strike Bell, whom he said was within arms reach.

“Right now he is within arms reach,” Fisher said. “I have the legal right to strike him, can’t I? Then I suggest you get someone here as soon as possible because I don’t know what he might do.”

He then stressed to the dispatcher again that he was being harassed, the video shows.

“That’s racial,” he said. “I’m the only African American out here and he feels a duty to harass me.”

Read more of this story in Tuesday’s print edition of The Daily News Journal.

— Mark Bell, 615-278-5153

A NOTE TO READERS: Documentary filmmaker Eric Allen Bell is not related to The Daily News Journal reporter Mark Bell.

Michele Bachmann Endorses Call for Anti-Muslim Inquisition

by Daniel Luban

I wrote earlier for IPS about the new Center for Security Policy report “Shariah: The Threat to America,” authored by a team billing itself as “Team B II” (in reference to the 1970s  Team B notorious for its alarmist and now-discredited estimates of Soviet military capabilities). The group that produced the report featured a number of the right’s nuttier Islamophobes, including Frank Gaffney, Andy McCarthy, and David Yerushalmi. Given that this sort of thinking is making inroads among congressional Republicans — the report was endorsed by Reps. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), Trent Franks (R-AZ), and Michele Bachmann (R-MN) — it’s worth taking a closer look at some of the report’s prescriptions to see just how extreme it is.

The central problem with the report is that the authors identify “sharia” with the most literalistic and brutal versions of sharia, and therefore fail to understand what the term might actually mean to the bulk of Muslims worldwide. (When Matt Duss asked Gaffney at Wednesday’s press conference to name any Muslims scholars or theologians who had been consulted in the writing of the report, Gaffney was unable to produce any names.) As a result their prescriptions would amount in practice to a criminalization of virtually any form of Islam.

Here are some of their policy recommendations (p. 143 of the report):

“…extend bands currently in effect that bar members of hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan from holding positions of trust in federal, state, or local governments or the armed forces of the United States to those who espouse or support shariah.”

“Practices that promote shariah – notably, shariah-compliant finance and the establishment or promotion in public spaces or with public funds of facilities and activities that give preferential treatment to shariah’s adherents – are incompatible with the Constitution and the freedoms it enshrines and must be proscribed.”

“Sedition is prohibited by law in the United States. To the extent that imams and mosques are being used to advocate shariah in America, they are promoting seditious activity and should be warned that they will not be immune from prosecution.”

“Immigrations of those who adhere to shariah must be precluded, as was previously done with adherents to the seditious ideology of communism.”

I am not a scholar of Islam, but any competent one will tell you that sharia is a far broader term than the “Team B” authors seem to think it is – it basically refers to Islamic religious precepts in general, to the point of being virtually synonymous with Islamic religious practice. As a result any practicing Muslim, no matter how moderate or extreme, will consider himself or herself to be “sharia-compliant” according to their own understanding of what sharia requires. This does not, of course, mean that they will endorse the brutal hudud penalties that have become the most notorious symbols of sharia to non-Muslims, that they will seek to impose these precepts on others, or that they will seek to make them the law of the land. But to demand that a practicing Muslim to renounce sharia is tantamount to demanding that they renounce Islam itself.

This is precisely what the report’s recommendations demand, whether or not it’s what the authors intend. Any Muslim who “espouses” or “adheres to” sharia – that is, any practicing Muslim – will thereby be banned from government or military service, prohibited from immigrating to the country, and even opened to prosecution for sedition. The only Muslims immune from this witch-hunt are those “who are willing publicly to denounce shariah” – a surefire recipe for the creation of conversos and crypto-Muslims, but hardly one consistent with the First Amendment.

We might be charitable to the “Team B” authors and argue that they’re simply ignorant: not understanding what sharia actually means, they have identified it with its most extreme manifestations, and therefore wrongly believe that by asking Muslims to renounce sharia they are simply asking them to renounce radical Islam. A less charitable explanation would be that they know exactly what they’re doing, and are seeking to outlaw Islam itself.

[Cross-posted at Lobelog.]

Robert Spencer and his goonish friend Pamela Geller, leaders of the hate group SIOA and FDI are claiming that the size of their rally on September 11th, which they billed as the biggest thing ever was huge.

The fact is that it was really not that big, let alone historic. It was definitely not in the 40,000 or more range as Geller and Spencer claim. In fact according to the AP it wasn’t larger than a thousand.

Charles Johnson sums it up well:

Anti-Mosque Rally Attendance: Less Than 1,000

According to the Associated Press, attendance at Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer’s international hate rally was less than 1,000: The Associated Press: Dueling demonstrations begin after 9/11 memorial.

After the ceremony, around 1,000 activists rallied about five blocks from the site of the 2001 attacks to support the proposed Islamic community center. A smaller group of opponents rallied nearby, chanting, “USA, USA.”

UPDATE at 9/11/10 6:27:36 pm:

Hilarious! Geller is claiming 40,000. Who could ever have predicted that?

UPDATE at 9/11/10 6:41:30 pm:

Pamela Geller’s closing words to the seething throng:

As the crowds dissipated, Geller warned them against talking to members of the media: “Do not give them any ammunition. You know who you are. You know that you’re righteous. Do not give them an opportunity to deride this fine and honorable effort. Remember what I’m saying. They’re looking to catch you. Don’t give it to them.”

“Listen to Mommy,” she said.

Of course Spencer and company claim that it is a big old conspiracy against those who want to expose Islam, and that the numbers are under reported. Fact is that it isn’t under reported, it is just the their hate rally was “historically” underwhelming.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which has come under fire for its opposition to the NYC Cordoba House Mosque and Cultural Center put up a piece on August 26th on their website that denounced Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), an organization founded and lead by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, two of the leading anti-Muslim bigots in the nation (hat tip: Justin).

The ADL wrote that SIOA “promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam.”

They then proceeded to highlight much of what we already exposed in early July about the existence of hardcore anti-Muslim fear mongering and overt genocidal declarations by SIOA members,

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who took over the group’s leadership in April 2010, view SIOA as protecting against a powerful and dangerous “Islamic machine” that stands to threaten the security and cultural fabric of the U.S. Geller, in views she outlines in her blog, has linked Islam to bestiality and rape of minors and described the Qur’an as “inspiring” violence. Geller has also charged that Muslim immigration has caused “rampant” honor killings in North America and Europe, compared Muslims to Nazis, and asserted that Hitler was inspired by Islam.

Several SIOA ads have been displayed on public transportation in various cities in the U.S. One set of ads directed viewers to a Web site created by SIOA called “Refuge From Islam.” The site claims that Muslim Americans who “long to be free” of their religion are in danger of being killed, and offers “safe houses” for those who want “out.” Another set of ads – the “Honor Killing Awareness Campaign” – purports to address young Muslim women feeling threatened by their family for rejecting Muslim values or becoming “too Americanized.”

Much of SIOA’s activity has been focused on the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero. Geller, in particular, has sought to garner support for the group at various events in New York and elsewhere. At a Tea Party convention in Tennessee on May 22, 2010, Geller called the proposed center “the ultimate flag of conquest.” On June 6, during an SIOA demonstration against the proposed Islamic Center in New York City that attracted thousands, Geller said, “It is unconscionable to build a shrine to the very ideology that inspired the jihadist attacks at ground zero.” SIOA also launched an advertising campaign, which ran during the month of August, juxtaposing an image of an airplane headed toward the burning World TradeCenter with another building labeled “WTC Mega Mosque” and the words “Why There?”

SIOA organized what it characterized as a “September 11 Rally of Remembrance” near the proposed Islamic center site on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The rally featured a number of politicians, radio personalities as well as 9/11 victims’ family members. After a number of commemorative prayers, SIOA head Pamela Geller told rally participants, “Only you can stop this triumpheral mosque on the cherished site of conquered land.” Participants carried various banners and signs, including ones that read, “No Obama’s Mosque” and “Islam = 1400 years of Aggression, Murder! ‘Peace’ of Islam = Cutting Non-Muslims to Pieces! Never Submit to Sharia – Islam!”

Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who was introduced by Geller as her “hero,” told the crowd: “As we all know, America, New York and shari’a are incompatible…A tolerant society, like your city New York, must defend itself against the powers of darkness, against the forces of hatred, the blight of ignorance….we must never give a free hand to those who want to subjugate us.”

In her blog postings and other writings, Geller regularly voices support for Wilders, whom she has described as “the Bravest Man in Europe” and “our proxy in the trial of Western Civilization, protagonist vs Islam, antagonist.” She has also indicated that she intends to help garner support for Wilders; she claims to have personally financed Wilder’s February 2009 trip to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC. A few months later, she served on the host committee of one South Florida event held in Wilders’ honor and defended him against criticism related to some of his other scheduled appearances in the area.

SIOA was created to mirror its European “sister” organization, Stop the Islamization of Europe (SIOE). Like its American affiliate, SIOE warns of the encroachment of shari’a, or Islamic law.  However, SIOE’s leaders go one step further, calling for the halt to all mosque construction in Europe.

Geller has also expressed support for the goals and actions of the English Defense League (EDL), a self-described “Counter Jihad movement” based inEngland. Geller described the group as Europe’s “movement for freedom” and promoted EDL events, including a March 2010 rally organized in support of Wilders. In response to an incident in which members of the EDL were implicated in violent clashes with police in the northern English city ofBradford in August 2010, Geller posted the following message to her blog: “The stated goal of the EDL is to oppose militant Islam and the sharia. What’s wrong with that? Everything to the PC, leftist slaves in the media and the government.” Days later, she defended the group against accusations that it features a neo-Nazi and racist ideology, instead accusing the media of attacking “any and all counter jihad activists.”

Anti-Muslim themes can also be seen in Geller and Spencer’s impassioned criticism of President Obama, whom Geller has described as “the culmination of the Islamic-leftist alliance.” Geller has accused Obama of doing the bidding of “Islamic overlords” and unfairly favoring Muslims, whom she argues have become “a de facto privileged class” in the U.S. Geller and Spencer co-authored the book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America, released in July 2010.

While it is welcomed news that the ADL condemns the likes of Geller and Spencer, it highlights a glaring contradiction on the part of the ADL. They  are willing to take a stand against the likes of Geller and Spencer but at the same time they receive funds from those who support them, i.e. Aubrey Chernick and his wife.

These denunciations will always appear hollow and hypocritical until the ADL boldly calls out the Chernicks for supporting the likes of Spencer and either gives the Chernicks an ultimatum to repudiate and distance themselves from Spencer or return the money to the Chernicks in protest.

Dude, you HAVE no Koran!

And the mandatory youtube remix:

There is a proper way to cite, and in light of recent events we give you an example of someone properly citing Loonwatch.

The Hidden Rules of Blame

David Berreby on September 12, 2010, 9:52 AM

People like to use categories for people (race, religion, nation, class, gender) as explanations for others’ behavior (for example, I was late because there was traffic and I have a lot on my plate right now, but you were late because you’re a Gen X slacker).

Yet all categories are not equal. Instead, each one seems to be licensed to explain only certain kinds of behavior. In ordinary talk, temperament is OK to explain career choice (he’s always liked to argue, so he became a trial lawyer) but not how people vote. For that, it’s acceptable to invoke religion (he’s an observant Catholic, you know, so he votes on the social issues) but not career choice. Violating these expectations is like violating a rule of syntax: It just sounds wrong to people.

Because of this semantic licensing system, certain ideas about society are easy to create and hard to undo, even when they are demonstrably false. For example: the persistence of the notion that terrorists attack things because they’re Muslims. According to Europol’s 2010 annual report on terrorism, for example, of the 294 attacks and attempts in the European Union last year, exactly one was committed by Muslim extremists. (Credit to Loonwatch for this and similar stats.)

Conversely, these hidden conceptual rules make novel explanations hard to accept, even if the evidence supports them. Temperament may indeed predispose people to prefer one sort of political stance over another, but it takes effort to suppress a non-rational impulse to say, “why, that’s impossible.”

Today in the New York Times Magazine I discuss another novel link between a category and a behavior: The notion that engineers are slightly more susceptible than most to the siren-song of right-wing terrorism. In normal parlance “occupation” isn’t a category licensed to help explain why people become suicide bombers. Part of what interested me about the theory was the difficulty people have in wrapping their heads around the proposal. Not because of the evidence, but because of the way our minds use categories.

People of the book

The true history of the Koran in America

By Ted Widmer  |  September 12, 2010

Nine years later, we are still haunted by Sept. 11, and in some ways it’s getting worse. All summer, a shrill debate over whether to build a mosque near the Ground Zero site was fueled by pundits on the right, who drummed up a chorus of invective that made it impossible to focus on the modest facts of the case. Then in the days leading up to the 11th, a church in Gainesville, Fla., sparked a firestorm — almost literally — by inviting Christians to come by on the anniversary for a ceremonial burning of the Koran. The Dove World Outreach Center — a misnomer if ever there was one — has made a cottage industry of its Islam-bashing, promoting its old-fashioned hate crusade with the most modern weapons — YouTube, podcasts, Facebook, and blogs (“Top Ten Reasons to Burn a Koran”).

Obviously, this was an act of naked self-promotion as much as a coherent statement about religion. Its instigator, the church’s pastor, Terry Jones, based his crusade on a series of mind-bending assumptions, including his belief that Muslims are always in bad moods (he asks, on camera, “Have you ever really seen a really happy Muslim?”). But for all of its cartoonish quality, and despite his cancellation under pressure Thursday, the timing of this media circus has been a disaster for US foreign policy and the troops we ask to support it. At the exact moment that we want to act as the careful steward of peace in the Middle East, minds around the world have been filled with the image of Korans in America being tossed onto pyres.

For better or worse, there is not much anybody can do about religious extremists who offend decency, yet stay within the letter of the law. The same Constitution that confirms the right to worship freely protects the right to worship badly. But September is also the anniversary of the 1787 document that framed our government, and in this season of displaced Tea Party anger, it is worth getting right with our history. There is nothing wrong with the desire to go back to the founding principles that made this nation great — but we should take the time to discover what those principles actually were.

For most Americans, the Koran remains a deeply foreign book, full of strange invocations. Few non-Muslims read it, and most of us carry assumptions about a work of scripture that we assume to be hostile, though it affirms many of the earlier traditions of Christianity and Judaism. Like all works of scripture, it is complex and sometimes contradictory, full of soothing as well as frightening passages. But for those willing to make a genuine effort, there are important areas of overlap, waiting to be found.

As usual, the Founders were way ahead of us. They thought hard about how to build a country of many different faiths. And to advance that vision to the fullest, they read the Koran, and studied Islam with a calm intelligence that today’s over-hyped Americans can only begin to imagine. They knew something that we do not. To a remarkable degree, the Koran is not alien to American history — but inside it.

No book states the case more plainly than a single volume, tucked away deep within the citadel of Copley Square — the Boston Public Library. The book known as Adams 281.1 is a copy of the Koran, from the personal collection of John Adams. There is nothing particularly ornate about this humble book, one of a collection of 2,400 that belonged to the second president. But it tells an important story, and reminds us how worldly the Founders were, and how impervious to the fanaticisms that spring up like dandelions whenever religion and politics are mixed. They, like we, lived in a complicated and often hostile global environment, dominated by religious strife, terror, and the bloodsport of competing empires. Yet better than we, they saw the world as it is, and refused the temptation to enlarge our enemies into Satanic monsters, or simply pretend they didn’t exist.

Reports of Korans in American libraries go back at least to 1683, when an early settler of Germantown, Pa., brought a German version to these shores. Despite its foreign air, Adams’s Koran had a strong New England pedigree. The first Koran published in the United States, it was printed in Springfield in 1806.

Why would John Adams and a cluster of farmers in the Connecticut valley have bought copies of the Koran in 1806? Surprisingly, there was a long tradition of New Englanders reading in the Islamic scripture. The legendary bluenose Cotton Mather had his faults, but a lack of curiosity about the world was not one of them. Mather paid scrupulous attention to the Ottoman Empire in his voracious reading, and cited the Koran often in passing. True, much of it was in his pinched voice — as far back as the 17th century, New England sailors were being kidnapped by North African pirates, a source of never ending vexation, and Mather denounced the pirates as “Mahometan Turks, and Moors and Devils.” But he admired Arab and Ottoman learning, and when Turks in Constantinople and Smyrna succeeded in inoculating patients against smallpox, he led a public campaign to do the same in Boston (a campaign for which he was much vilified by those who called inoculation the “work of the Devil,” merely because of its Islamic origin). It was one of his finer moments.

Other early Americans denounced Islam — surprisingly, Roger Williams, whom we generally hold up as a model of tolerance, expressed the hope that “the Pope and Mahomet” would be “flung in to the Lake that burns with Fire and Brimstone.” But Rhode Island, and ultimately all of New England, proved hospitable to the strangers who came in the wake of the Puritans — notably, the small Jewish congregation that settled in Newport and built Touro Synagogue, America’s oldest. And in theory — if not often in practice (simply because there were so few) — that toleration extended to Muslims as well.

This theory was eloquently expressed around the time the Constitution was written. One of its models was the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution, which John Adams had helped to create, and which, in the words of one of its drafters, Theophilus Parsons, was designed to ensure “the most ample of liberty of conscience” for “Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians.”

As the Founders deliberated over what types of people would ultimately populate the strange new country they were creating, they cited Muslims as an extreme of foreign-ness whom it would be important to protect in the future. Perhaps, they daydreamed, a Muslim or a Catholic might even be president someday? Like everything, they debated it. Some disapproved, but Richard Henry Lee insisted that “true freedom embraces the Mahometan and Gentoo [Hindu] as well as the Christian religion.” George Washington went out of his way to praise Muslims on several occasions, and suggested that he would welcome them at Mount Vernon if they were willing to work. Benjamin Franklin argued that Muslims should be able to preach to Christians if we insisted on the right to preach to them. Near the end of his life, he impersonated a Muslim essayist, to mock American hypocrisy over slavery.

Thomas Jefferson, especially, had a familiarity with Islam that borders on the astonishing. Like Adams, he owned a Koran, a 1764 English edition that he bought while studying law as a young man in Williamsburg, Va. Only two years ago, that Koran became the center of a controversy, when the first Muslim ever elected to Congress, Keith Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota, asked if he could place his hand on it while taking his oath of office — a request that elicited tremendous screeches from the talk radio extremists. Jefferson even tried to learn Arabic, and wrote his Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom to protect “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.”

Jefferson and Adams led many of our early negotiations with the Islamic powers as the United States lurched into existence. A favorable treaty was signed with Morocco, simply because the Moroccans considered the Americans ahl-al-kitab, or “people of the book,” similar to Muslims, who likewise eschewed the idolatry of Europe’s ornate state religions. When Adams was president, a treaty with Tripoli (Libya) insisted that the United States was “not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion” and therefore has “no character of enmity against the laws, religion and tranquility of Mussulmen.”

There was another important group of Americans who read the Koran, not as a legal sourcebook, or a work of exoticism, but as something very different — a reminder of home. While evidence is fragmentary, as many as 20 percent of African-American slaves may have come from Islamic backgrounds. They kept their knowledge of the Koran alive through memory, or chanted suras, or, in rare cases, smuggled copies of the book itself. In the 1930s, when WPA workers were interviewing elderly African-Americans in Georgia’s Sea Islands, they were told of an ancestor named Bilali who spoke Arabic and owned a copy of the Koran — a remarkable fact when we remember that it was a crime for slaves to read. In the War of 1812, Bilali and his fellow Muslims helped to defend America from a British attack, inverting nearly all of our stereotypes in the process.

In 1790, as the last of the original 13 states embraced the Constitution, and the United States finally lived up to its name, George Washington visited that state — unruly Rhode Island — and its Jewish congregation at Newport. The letter he wrote to them afterwards struck the perfect note, and drained much of the antiforeign invective that was already poisoning the political atmosphere, only a year into his presidency. Addressing himself to “the children of the Stock of Abraham” (who, in theory, include Muslims as well as Jews), the president of the United States offered an expansive vision indeed:

“May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

For democracy to survive, it required consent; a willingness to surrender some bits of cultural identity to preserve the higher goal of a working community. Washington’s letter still offers a tantalizing prospect, especially as his successor turns from the distracting noise of Gainesville to the essential work of building peace in the Middle East, for all of the children of the Stock of Abraham.

Ted Widmer is the Beatrice and Julio Mario Santo Domingo director and librarian of the John Carter Brown Library at Brown University.

Rick Lazio has lost the New York GOP primary for governor to Tea Party candidate Carl Paladino. Lazio, a former moderate Republican based his whole campaign on the so called “Ground Zero” mosque controversy. In a cynical move Lazio jumped on the anti-Muslim/anti-Mosque sentiment and essentially based his whole election on opposing the mosque, hoping it would endear him to the nutty Tea Partiers who have taken over the GOP. He had nothing to say about the economy, jobs, health care, our wars, he stuck to his one trick pony and in the end it did him no good. He sold out his principles and any integrity he had for a cheap chance at winning an election, nothing new in the annals of politics but well worth a good hearty laugh at.

Rick Lazio, Carl Paladino, and the Future of the GOP

Rick Lazio, the once-popular moderate GOP congressman from Long Island, has lost his bid to become the Republicans’ nominee for governor of New York. Lazio will still appear on the ballot on the Conservative Party line, but crazy, racist upstate millionaire businessman Carl Paladino will be the New York GOP’s choice to take on state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. This is both appropriate and scary.

It’s appropriate because Lazio wasn’t much better than Paladino on what became (sigh) the key issue of the primary race. During the campaign, Lazio, like Paladino, focused much of his attention on the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque,” a community and worship center that a group of moderate Muslims want to build two blocks away from the site of the September 11 attacks. (Adam Weinstein has more on all that here.) The two GOPers were basically competing to see who could better stomp on the Constitution.

Lazio referred to the project as a “trophy mosque” (implying all Muslims were responsible for 9/11) and of course claimed his opposition was “not about religion.” After all, he said, “There are many places for Muslims to pray throughout the city.” (Why should Muslims be able to pray on private property that they own? It’s not like this is America or something.) “But this site here is so close to Ground Zero,” he said, adding that “it is sacred ground.” Cuomo, to his credit, has rejected Lazio’s calls that he “investigate” the planners and funders of the so-called mosque. The “mosque” stuff is a disgusting, hateful business, and a more courageous Republican candidate wouldn’t have participated in it. I suspect Lazio wasn’t lying when he said his position on the issue was “not about religion.” Of course it wasn’t—it was about politics, and trying to convince a radicalized, rump New York GOP to nominate him. How’d that work out for you, Rick? Read More

We don’t mind people reproducing our material.  In fact, we encourage it.  But this is on the condition that our site is cited as the source (and linked back to). This is common courtesy, and it is bad form to do otherwise.  Maybe “steal” is too strong of a word, but it certainly is from improper manners.

Check out this video from Al Jazeera:

Skip to 4:00…look familiar? That’s taken straight from our article:

LoonWatch: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t

Sabrina Park of the Daily Titan did an even more egregious job and passed this article off as her own:

The Daily Titan: Only 6 Percent of Terrorists are Muslims

Don’t make me go all Joe Rogan on Ms. Park…

One of the major reasons why this annoys me is because not only did she steal my work, but she did a poor job of it.  Her article appears horribly weak because she couldn’t bother taking the extra five seconds to properly link to the FBI website, as I did in my article.  The reason I want my article linked to is because I am the best one to deliver my own argument.  It’s like someone using Seinfeld’s joke at work, and butchering it in the process.  My annoyance does not revolve around personal glory (I write anonymously remember?), but my passion for my writing.  That’s my beef with Ms. Park.  As for Al Jazeera, a simple shout out could have spread the Good Word about LoonWatch to a very interested audience.

And for the record, I conveyed my annoyance to Ms. Park and she ignored my request to simply cite my article.  I’m half considering throwing a hissy fit like Andrew Bostom did against Robert Spencer’s plagiarism.

UPDATE: I am also very aware of the fact that the title should technically read “All Terrorist Attacks are committed by Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t.”  It just didn’t flow well, so I chose the title I did.  This of course prompted some Islamophobes to point out that all the top terrorists on FBI wanted lists are mostly Muslim.  My response to this is simple: if we found a governmental database that showed that most violent crimes in Los Angeles were committed by whites (not blacks), but if 90% of arrests were of blacks, what would be your conclusion?  The huge discrepancy between the perception of so-called “Islamic terrorism” and the actual reality of it is only underscored by the amount of time, energy, and resources our government spends (read: wastes) chasing down the Islamic boogieman.  (Yes, the boogieman converted to Islam.)  And just like the LAPD has a history of discrimination and abuse towards blacks, so too does the intelligence community (the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, and even CTU) have a horrible track record towards the Muslim community.

UPDATE 2: Just noticed this gem from Ms. Park’s article: “We all know hardly anyone can think for themselves these days anyway.”  Hardly anyone indeed.

UPDATE 3: After I posted a comment on the Daily Titan announcing that I had posted this “annoyed” article, Ms. Park deleted my comment but decided it would be more tactful to accept my earlier comment posting a link to the original LoonWatch article.  National crisis averted.

Islam and Muslim related issues have taken central stage as leading news stories in America with a frequency of coverage that might make other faiths green with envy. Does all this (un)wanted attention serve to bolster the perception of Muslims (as the saying goes, “any publicity is good publicity”) or does it present a scenario of helplessness in which ones faith is gawked and bawked at willy nilly by political opportunists and an overwhelmingly complicit uncritical media? Or both?

The answer to the first question is that it is not always true that “any publicity is good publicity,” if you believe that then there is a New York City Cab driver with whom I would like you to speak. The attention that has been levied on Islam and Muslims has taken stories that were really “tempests-in-a-tea-pot” and made them into hurricanes that only highlight the helplessness American Muslims face when it comes to their relationship with the media and society.

Take the example of the NYC Mosque and Cultural Center. This story was whipped up into a frenzy by a pair of bigoted anti-Muslim bloggers, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, two individuals who should be summarily dismissed as loons that have zero influence in the mainstream media or amongst any of our politicians.

Yet, we are reaping the fruits of their persistent and belligerent disinformation campaign about a “mosque at Ground Zero,” smears against an Imam who has been sponsored by the State Department as a diplomat, and a Muslim community that is being indicted as collectively guilty for the crimes perpetuated by a fringe extremist organization. Muslims are told to be sensitive to the those who are insensitive, to quietly take the bigotry and move elsewhere. For some, the heavily accented Dutch neo-fascist politician Geert Wilders’ cry of “no mosque here” resonates and is far more familiar than appeals to the Constitution and the rights of their neighbors.

More egregiously however has been the silencing of Muslim voices in the face of the perpetuation of stereotypes resulting in the witting and unwitting explosion of prejudice directed at Muslims. Muslims are only brought on TV to respond to crises, sometimes these crises are wholly manufactured by an uncritical media. A case study on this is needed but let us take the example of the threat against the South Park creators by Revolution Muslim and the International Burn the Koran Day by Pastor Terry Jones and his Dove Outreach Church.

The controversy that swelled around South Park was initiated by Revolution Muslim, a fringe group even amongst extremists, composed of about 4 morons with below zero credibility in the Muslim community. In fact, they were kicked out of the mosque they attended and were relegated to being scraggly street side loons with a bull horn. Most people with common sense who passed them by on the street viewed these people for who they were, a bunch of nuts.

However, for whatever reason the media took it upon itself to give them a voice. These nobodies became the spokesmen for Muslims, and in an even worse move Comedy Central lent credence to the threat by canceling the South Park episodes that included the Prophet Muhammad. No one asked Muslims for their opinion, Comedy Central didn’t bother to consult Muslims, instead they chose the path of self-censorship (or what some cynically term a PR stunt) at the expense of Muslims. The result was a perception that Islam not only can’t take criticism, not only do they react violently to such criticism but they can’t even handle their Prophet being depicted by people who don’t hold the same opinion as they do about pictorial representations of holy figures.

This perception metastasized into a phenomenon that pitted false paradigms against one another, leading to the willful deafness of one group so consumed by its perceptions that it ultimately resulted in the wrongheaded and thoroughly Islamophobic “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.”

What did the media do to correct the ignorance it helped to perpetuate? Nothing. The damage was done, the story that was headline news for a while faded into the abyss of old news but the residue of perception remained.

Fast forward to the past few weeks and the debate over whack job Pastor Terry Jones’ call for an International Burn the Koran Day on 9/11. He based his action on Acts 19:19 in which the early Christians burned the books of witches. He believed he was doing the Godly, righteous thing since Islam was “of the Devil” and leading people to the doom of Hellfire.

But notice the difference in the coverage of the Revolutionary Muslim crackpots and this Terry Jones character. Even though both are fringe groups/individuals with unbelievably small followings, only one group, Revolutionary Muslim, was allowed to define a whole religion.

The distinction was made consistently and repeatedly from the top echelon of our government all the way down to our media that Terry Jones and his followers were a minority who don’t speak for Christianity or America, but the same point was given scant time or attention when it came to the South Park Controversy.

This double standard has to end because it is intellectually and morally dishonest and only perpetuates a perception of Muslims as backward primitives defined and represented by their least common denominator, a myth that can, as we have seen in the past, have dire consequences.

Stewart takes on the inanity that is the media and the absurdity that is disinformation central, Fox News. Lately the Islamophobes have been in a tizzy over Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s interview on CNN, claiming that he made a threat against America, Stewart exposes their fallacy.

Mosque opponents have been screaming that the proposed NYC Islamic Cultural Center is going to be a slap in the face and offensive because of its closeness to “hallowed ground.” However, many of them probably didn’t bargain for the fact that it is more hallowed than they actually knew. There are many graves of slaves buried in Manhattan (via. Colorlines).

Ground Zero’s Slave Graves

Before the mosque debate, there were the Ground Zero Slave Graves. Jen Phillips over at Mother Jones adds some historical perspective:

The outrage about the “ground zero mosque” has turned very ugly, as this video of this recent protest shows. People are calling Mohammed a pig. A New York City cab driver was stabbed today after his passenger asked him if he was Muslim. But I find the righteous outrage of those contending the former World Trade Center site is “hallowed ground” amusing, because they have no idea just how right they are. Before the World Trade Center was even designed (with Islamic architectural elements, incidentally), the ground was indeed sacrosanct: The bones of some 20,000 African slaves are buried 25 feet below Lower Manhattan. As at least 10 percent of West African slaves in America were Muslims, it’s not out of bounds to extrapolate that ground zero itself was built on the bones of at least a few Muslim slaves. That is to say, hallowed Muslim ground.

For some time, activists, historians, and city officials have been working together to excavate and preserve the bones of the slaves buried under present-day lower Manhattan. A recent excavation of a 14,000 square foot section of the six-acre burial ground found that 92 percent of the 419 skeletons were of African descent, and 40 percent were children under 12. The bones of the 419 slaves were eventually reinterred.

It’s a harrowing reality for a debate that’s grown increasingly bombastic — and violent. While none of this takes away from the horror of 9/11, it’s a welcomed historical fact check.

Read more at Mother Jones.

The originator of the Burn a Koran day, Pastor Terry Jones based his vile act on Acts 19:19 which stated that the early Christians burned the books of some who practiced witch-craft. Terry Jones backed down from his threat to burn the Koran because he said he received a sign from God not to do it. However, some other ministers went ahead with it.

2 ministers burn Quran in Tennessee backyard

SPRINGFIELD — A Florida pastor’s threat to burn Islam’s holy book on the anniversary of 9/11 set off a nationwide furor and incited Muslim anger as far away as Afghanistan, but the incendiary plan ended quietly in the backyard of a home in Springfield.

After a week that included warnings that burning the Quran would endanger American troops overseas, a personal phone call from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and an appeal from President Barack Obama to listen to “those better angels,” the Rev. Terry Jones of Gainesville, Fla., relented and canceled his plans.

But the Rev. Bob Old vowed to stick with his plan to burn the Quran.

On Saturday, despite the national tempest and opposition from conservative Christian leaders including Middle Tennessee pastors, Old carried out his plan.

But for all the controversy and hype, his Quran burning took place in front of just a handful of people, most of them from the media.

Old and the Rev. Danny Allen stood together in Old’s backyard, answering what they say was a message from God.

The pair soaked two copies of the Quran and one other Islamic text with lighter fluid, ignited them and watched the books disintegrate into ashes on the ninth anniversary of the terrorist attacks carried out by Islamic extremists that killed nearly 3,000 Americans.

Old acknowledged that aside from Allen he had little other support, even from his family.

“I do this without the blessings of others,” he said.

Old did not address his critics directly, but he said that the Christian church has failed the people.

“The American people have a great deal to gain and a great deal to lose in supporting the Muslim faith,” Old said. “My belief is that we as a nation are in dangerous territory.”

“This is a book of hate, not a book of love,” Old said, holding the Quran, before setting it afire. “It’s a false book, it’s a false prophet (Muhammad) and it’s false Scripture.”

Then the two conducted what Old called a “peaceful demonstration” with little fanfare. Eight journalists gathered in Old’s backyard during the burning.

3 Protest Burning

Three protesters stood across the street from Old’s home, holding signs that read “My husband fights terrorism and your actions perpetuate it” and “Proud of my country but ashamed of my neighbors.”

Ashley Parsons of Fort Campbell said she protested to show support for her husband, Matthew, who is serving in Afghanistan.

“It’s been said by our military leaders and the president that these sorts of things cause harm to our troops over there,” Parsons said. “Why would someone take a national tragedy and make it controversial? It’s tragic.”

One of our very own Loonwatcher’s was at the rally held by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer’s Stop the Islamization of America on 9/11/10.

Islamophobia? What Islamophobia?

Here is Part II, where they try to run the “Mooslim” out of the rally:

This is nothing new or surprising, any rally or protest organized by the hate group SIOA is bound to attract the most insane and crazy right wingers and Conservatives out there.

Robert Spencer has a Geert Wilders problem. He is an unabashed supporter of Wilders, citing him as the champion of Western civilization, the only one willing to stand up for our freedoms in the face of the Muslim menace and an individual we should all be supporting.

[I] support Wilders. And so should anyone who holds dear the Western values that are threatened by Islamic supremacists — notably, as I said above, the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of all people before the law.

But apparently not Freedom of Religion.

Recently Spencer has commented on the Burn a Koran day festivities saying,

I oppose the Qur’an-burning. I don’t like the burning of books…However, these people are free to do what they want to do.

Isn’t Spencer so merciful? Thank you for opposing the burning of books, what a courageous stand for a defender of the West!

But wait Spencer, you oppose burning books but your buddy Geert Wilders has called for the Quran to be banned in the Netherlands.

The Koran must be banned

Pretty unequivocal statement right there. No ifs, ands or buts just plain banning. So when are you going to take a courageous stand and defend Freedom of Speech and Religion by calling your buddy Wilders out for his Nazi like fascistic statement to ban the Quran?

Islamophobia? What Islamophobia?

The Hudson Islamic Center was targeted by vandals who spray painted racial slurs and anti-government messages on the mosque, obviously upset over the proximity of Hudson to Ground Zero,

Hudson mosque vandalized

HUDSON — City detectives are searching for the vandals who spray-painted a racial slur on a local mosque and an anti-government obscenity in an alley near the house of worship, according to police.

Hudson Lt. Lynne Finn said the vandalism occurred sometime between midnight and 5 a.m. Wednesday at the Hudson Islamic Center on North 3rd Street. The epithet was left on the rear of the mosque while the anti-government rant was spray painted on a wooden fence in an alleyway adjacent to the mosque at the corner of North 3rd Street and Long Alley, Finn said.

Finn said both were done with red paint.

The building is located downtown in a residential area, Finn added.

And from the city of brotherly love which must be to close to Ground Zero as well,

Thanks, Philadelphia, For At Least Keeping Your Intolerance Peaceful

The cover of the Philadelphia Daily News today promises to explain “Why Islamophobia is Raging Elsewhere in America, but Not in Philly.” Awesome! Apparently we hate Muslims less than other people hate them, which is nice of us. Will Bunch writes:

Here in Philadelphia and the suburbs, Islamic leaders acknowledge that this region has so far been spared major incidents like the others, and they say that the overall climate for Muslims here has not been as negative as elsewhere.

Philadelphia’s Muslim population is relatively large and has been a part of the city for decades, which could partially explain why this year’s nativist panic en vogue hasn’t touched us quite as much. Bunch’s article also points to the diversity of Philly’s Muslim population, which includes a significant segment of African-American Muslims. In other words: Islam in Philadelphia’s collective subconscious is more Freeway and less foreigners+Islam=terrorism. Bunch, of course, is in a unique position to comment on all of this. His new book, Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, Hi-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama, is just out, and as it happens, he’s reading from it tonight at Rittenhouse Barnes & Noble.

But Philadelphia apparently does hate Muslims at least a little bit. Bunch tells us about a 25-year-old Muslim who was called a terrorist by a customer at a pharmacy where he worked and was forced to quit his job after he walked off in anger. Bunch also tells us that Moein Khawaja, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Philadelphia office, has seen an increase in that kind of bigotry over the past couple of years. On the plus side, we haven’t set fire to Mosque construction sites or stabbed any Muslim cab drivers, which I guess is a start. But, uh, is that really enough to earn Philadelphia a column patting it on the back for its “Tolerance toward Islam?” The result of low expectations, perhaps?

and don’t forget about Arizona,

Mosque under construction in Phoenix vandalized

by Frank Camacho

azfamily.com

Posted on September 7, 2010 at 9:10 PM

PHOENIX – Staff at a Phoenix mosque is cleaning up broken glass and graffiti after vandals break in.

The mosque has been under construction near Interstate 17 and Glendale for a while now but recently vandals doused floor with paint after breaking a door and several windows, including some near the ceiling.

The damage is not extensive but local Muslim leaders say they see this as a sign of the times, given the controversy over the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero.

No one has yet been arrested for the crime.

Aubrey Chernick, Major funder of Zionist Orgs & Islamophobic Orgs

Conspiracy Theory?

Much has been said about the disproportionate Zionist presence in the world of organized Islamophobia. Now we learn that there is more to that claim than unfounded conspiracy theories. It turns out the main funder of anti-Muslim blogger/anti-Park51 organizer Robert Spencer and his hate site JihadWatch are husband and wife duo Aubrey and Joyce Chernick, the same couple are ardent supporters of Zionist causes and major funders of pro-Israel groups across the country.

Aubrey Chernick according to Politico,

A onetime trustee of the hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Aubrey Chernick led the effort to pull together $3.5 million in venture capital to start Pajamas Media, a conservative blog network that made its name partly with hawkish pro-Israel commentary and of late has kept up a steady stream of anti-mosque postings, including one rebutting attacks by CAIR against Spencer — who Pajamas CEO Roger Simon called “one of the ideological point men in the global war on terror.”

Politico lists some of the Zionist propaganda organizations and pro-occupation front organizations that Aubrey and Joyce Chernick have funded over the years:

• The Zionist Organization of America
• MEMRI, a group that distributes translations of inflammatory Arabic language material
• The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), a group that tracks what it depicts as the threat of radical Islam, run by notorious Islamophobe Steven Emerson
• CAMERA, a group that tracks what it says is anti-Israel bias in the media and that is associated with Daniel Pipes
• The Central Fund for Israel, a clearinghouse for moneys directed to pro-settler groups
• A number of conservative think tanks that are aligned with the Likud.

The Chernicks are also major funders of Jewish groups including: The American Jewish Congress, The Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles, and The Anti-Defamation League.

Lauren Rozen goes into more depth as far as the contributions and think tanks such as the Hudson Institute, Defense of Democracies, Central Fund of Israel, etc. (via. Richard Silverstein), including some well-known anti-Muslim and Islamophobic initiatives (in bold below).

Laura Rozen has discovered that Chernick’s charity-giving is done through the Fairbrook Foundation ($66-million in assets).  According to its 2008 IRS 990 report, among the far-right pro-Israel groups he’s funding are:

• Ateret Cohanim ($30,000), involved in the Judaization of East Jerusalem through “appropriation” of Arab homes
• Muslim-basher Bridgette Gabriel’s American Congress for Truth ($50,000)
• Aish HaTorah, funders of the anti-Muslim films Obsessed and Third Jihad ($14,000)
• the anti-Palestinian media advocacy group MEMRI ($100,000)
• American Freedom Alliance, another Muslim-bashing group, founded by Avi Davis, which defends western civilization from the unwashed hordes ($120,000)
• Gary Bauer’s American Values ($80,000)
• Horowitz’s Center for the Study of Popular Culture ($160,000)
• The anti-Arab media advocacy group CAMERA ($25,000)
• The Council for Democracy and Tolerance, an Arab-bashing group established by a Pakistani neocon ($160,000)
• Defend the West, yet another Muslim-turncoat group founded by Ibn Warraq ($130,000)
• Hudson Institute ($50,000); Heritage Foundation ($50,000)
• The Jewish neo-con security think tank JINSA ($15,000)
• The anti-Arab media advocacy group Second Draft ($40,000)
• Stand With Us ($20,000); and Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum ($180,000).
• In 2005, Chernick gave $60,000 to the Central Fund of Israel, one of the largest pro-settler ‘philanthropic’ advocacy groups.

This information is quite disturbing on a number of levels, foremost amongst them being the scant media attention being given to it as opposed to hyped-up stories such as the most recent attempt to sabotage the Park51 project with ten degrees of seperation/guilt-by-association smears against one of the investors in Park51, Hisham El-Zanaty.

The non-news story smears Zanaty by claiming that his one time donation to the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) of $6,050 in 1999 indicts him as a terror supporter. HLF was accused of giving aid to Hamas in the guise of charitable work.

So Zanaty was supposed to have foreknowledge about the HLF that even the US government didn’t have? Is it reasonable then to assume that everyone who gave money to the HLF in 1999 knew that the HLF was giving money to Hamas?

This AP news story sums it up quite nicely,

Many other donors to the foundation gave thinking their donations would fund humanitarian programs.

Other people and companies who donated money, equipment or services to the foundation the year Elzanaty gave included NBA star Hakeem Olajuwon, the Microsoft Corp., and a medical equipment company owned by General Electric, according to tax records.

When the foundation’s leaders were indicted, Attorney General John Ashcroft said, the case was not “a reflection on the well-meaning people who may have donated funds to the foundation.”

Even the Attorney General under George Bush, the one who was instrumental in the implementation of the Patriot Act affirmed what is obvious common sense, the case was not “a reflection on the well-meaning people who may have donated funds to the foundation.”

However, for some reason this non-story about Zanaty eclipses  the very real story about the implications surrounding the funding of leading Jewish and Zionist organizations, JihadWatch, and Conservative groups many of which are the chief proponents behind the anti-Mosque drive.

How comfortable do the leaders of the ADL, AJC and others feel about receiving money from a couple who at the same time are the chief funders of an organization and a group of anti-Muslim bigots who are leading the charge in fomenting anti-Muslim sentiment across the United States?

Will they be coureagous enough to return the money they have received from the Chernicks and say that they do not want to be tainted by people such as Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer who as we have documented are thoroughly anti-Islam and anti-Muslim? Will the media drop its willful ignorance and double standards and begin to look into the glaring data out there?

Omar Tarazi, the attorney for the parents of Rifqa Bary is suing Rifqa’s former attorney and Pamela Geller for defamation. Yes, Pamela you regularly defame Muslims and claim they are terrorists or terrorist supporters/sympathizers. Watch Pamela play the victim soon. (hat tip: Marco, via. LGF)

$10 Million Defamation Suit Filed Against Pamela Geller

Last year Pamela Geller injected herself into the case of Rifqa Bary, a teenage runaway and Christian convert who claimed her Muslim parents were planning to kill her. (The Florida Department of Law Enforcement subsequently investigated these claims and found “no evidence whatsoever of alleged abuse or threats of death made by the girl’s parents.”)

As part of her usual hateful rabble-rousing, Geller repeatedly labeled the attorney for Bary’s parents as a terrorist sympathizer who was “appointed by CAIR.”

Now attorney Omar Tarazi is suing Geller and an activist Christian attorney in federal court for $10 million.

A Muslim attorney on one side of the Rifqa Bary dispute has filed a $10 million defamation lawsuit against Orlando attorney John Stemberger, an activist Christian attorney who worked for the other side.

The suit was filed by Omar Tarazi in federal court in Columbus, Ohio, Friday. It names John Stemberger of the conservative Florida Family Policy Council.

Also being sued is a blogger from elsewhere, Pamela Oshry, who writes under the name Pamela Geller at the website atlasshrugged2000 and penned scathing anti-Muslim posts after Rifqa ran away from home in July 2009, saying she was afraid her Muslim parents would kill her for converting to Christianity. …

In the suit, Tarazi accuses Stemberger of falsely claiming on Fox News that Tarazi was associated with a Columbus-area mosque that had ties to terrorists. It also says Stemberger defamed Tarazi by saying Rifqa’s parents fired qualified court-appointed Ohio attorneys to use only one – Tarazi – who was paid by a pro-Muslim group in Ohio, the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR.

Tarazi was paid by no one, according to the suit. …

Oshry [Geller] published web posts that falsely said Tarazi had joined Hamas, a Palestinian terrorist organization, and received payments from ” ‘criminal’ organizations with ‘ties’ to terrorists,” according to the suit.

The attorney being sued, John Stemberger, is apparently also under investigation by the Florida Bar for possible ethics violations in the case:

Stemberger on Tuesday called the suit “ridiculous and frivolous.”

“This is just an attempt at grandstanding after a loss,” he said.

Stemberger acknowledged but would not discuss an investigation by the Florida Bar into possible ethics violations by him for statements he made about the case.

I command you to watch this:

ACT! For America, or as they are better known Hate! for America have created what they are dubbing a joint project, Veteran Defenders of America. ACT! for America is the organization led by class A loon Brigitte Gabriel, it regularly defames Muslims and insists Islam is trying to take over America.

In my previous article, ACT! for America is better known as Hate! for America I wrote,

ACT! for America has a problem. Its first problem is that it was founded by Brigitte Gabriel. Yes, the same Brigitte Gabriel the New York Times called a “radical Islamophobe” and who in the past has made statements like “Arabs have no soul,” and “Arabs are barbarians.” She might be novel eye candy for some (which I’m guessing is the reason Bill Maher had her on his show) but it is clear that Brigitte Gabriel is a whacked out fundamentalist with a seething rage against Muslims and a determination on the one hand to destroy Islam and on the other to make as much profit in the process.

The other problem with ACT! is that it is an organization filled with the types of people we see at Tea Party rallies. You know the ones who dress up in late 18th century regalia a la George Washington or carry around posters about Obama being a Kenyan, or Hitler, or Joker or a Marxist Mooslim anti-Christ coming to change America from a Christian nation into the Soviet Union.

The ACT! for America scheme essentially boils down to an organization masquerading as a “defender of Western Civilization” akin to the claims of other Islamophobes such as Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller. They have a binary view of the world, the Bush mantra of “you’re either with us or against us.”

Now Brigitte and her goons are creating an organization of veterans who will be opposing “terrorism” (i.e. Islam) under the guise of “protecting our freedoms.” This development is pretty hair raising in light of the fact that threatening rhetoric has been observed from members of other anti-Muslim organizations who profess to also be veterans or soldiers in the US military.

We reported earlier on the existence of self-purported veterans in Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA) who made pronouncements of murder and genocide against Muslims,

Veterans know how to “lock and load.” They have honed their skills in the greatest and most powerful military in the world. When populists and fear-mongers unite to dredge up xenophobia, bigotry and hate against Islam and Muslims it lends itself to influencing our veterans and military personnel, especially considering they are involved in two wars in Muslim countries and are stationed on bases throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world.

Simple logic forces us to question: how many of the returning veterans are going to leave the fight against Muslims on the battlefield? Is it safe to venture that the process of dehumanizing the enemy, his religion, his culture, his race will not be limited to the battlefield but will actually see itself transported to the homeland, at least by a small minority?

When we combine this with those who seek to capitalize on anti-Muslim hysteria it is a volatile cocktail, and if the Veteran Defenders of America are any indication it is getting organized — and armed.

Richard Van Waes, founder and operating chair person of the Veteran Defenders of America has this message on his website,

The United States of America has long enjoyed freedoms no other country in history has ever known. The founders of our nation had vision to give us documents that entrusted freedom to all citizens.

As veterans, we swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and to defend it against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Quite simply, unlike any period in our long history, our freedoms are in jeopardy. Our domestic borders have been silently invaded with people who intend to harm us. There are thousands of terrorists and terror cells within the United States borders who have one goal as their agenda – the destruction of America as we know it. This simply cannot take place.

Most of us have families. I have children, grandchildren and extended family who all need protection. You, as a veteran, have training, skills and experience that uniquely enable you to respond to our government’s message that encourages family and community preparedness, citizen awareness and service to our families and our communities.

We’re asking all able-bodied veterans to join Veteran Defenders in an alliance to ensure our freedoms. REMEMBER, we ALL can contribute some of our skilled training, in some small way. Over 18 million strong, we are a valuable and frequently overlooked resource to our nation.

May God bless you, your family and our nation. The time is now, join us.

The idea that our domestic borders have been “invaded by people who intend to harm us,” that there are “thousands of terrorists and terror cells” within the United States who seek to take our freedom and destroy America is quite familiar. It is the language of paranoia, the language of those who sow the seeds of conspiracy to advance their own agenda. It is the same language that was used against Japanese Americans to justify the Internment camps, against Blacks to take away their personal freedoms and to perpetuate Jim Crow.

It is vital to the future of our nation that such organizations do not go unopposed and that the military, veterans of conscious, institutions such as the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) band together to ensure that this vitriol against Islam and Muslims does not spiral out of control.

Update: We thought it would be notable to point out the views of some veterans in response to this. John Bryant a former veteran himself and loonwatcher has this to say in response to the article,

“As a vet with kids in uniform, I find it unbelieveably offens[ive] that these assholes would use the symbols of our five services who fight to defend the constitution (including the first amendment, all of it!) to somehow equate service and patriotism with hate and bigotry!”

A timely article from Sumbul ali-Karamali, she makes good points on the hot-button issue of Shariah. A catch phrase that many are using to fear-monger against Islam and Muslims when many do not know what it actually means or how Muslims perceive it.

Who’s Afraid of Shariah?

Hasn’t the whole notion of shariah in America gotten a bit out of control? No, it hasn’t — it’s gotten hugely, obscenely, ignorantly out of control. How many of those anti-Islam protesters holding “NO SHARIA LAW” signs (as if anyone were advocating shariah law in the U.S.) actually know what the word means? I’d say, oh, none. Roughly.

Shariah (also spelled shari’ah or sharia or shari’a) is the Arabic word for “the road to the watering place.” In a religious context, it means “the righteous path.” Loosely, it can mean simply, “Islam.”

There are six principles of shariah. They are derived from the Qur’an, which Muslims believe is the word of God. All Islamic religious rules must be in line with these six principles of shariah.

Aha! The six principles must be about killing infidels, veiling women, stoning people for adultery, honor killings and female genital cutting, right? Nope.

Here they are, the six principles of shariah:

1. The right to the protection of life.
2. The right to the protection of family.
3. The right to the protection of education.
4. The right to the protection of religion.
5. The right to the protection of property (access to resources).
6. The right to the protection of human dignity.

Well, bless me, as a pledge-of-allegiance-reciting, California-raised Muslim girl, these six principles sound a lot like those espoused in my very own Constitution of the United States. Except that these were developed over a thousand years ago.

This is the core of shariah — these six principles. The term “shariah law” is a misnomer, because shariah is not law, but a set of principles. To Muslims, it’s the general term for “the way of God.”

But how do we know what the way of God is? Early Muslims looked to the Qur’an and the words of the Prophet Muhammad to figure this out. They filled books of interpretive writings (called fiqh) about how to act in accordance with the way of God. They rarely agreed — the fiqh is not just one rule, but many differing opinions and contradictory rules and scholarly debates.

Sometimes, shariah also refers to the whole body of Islamic texts, which includes the Qur’an, the sayings of the Prophet, and the books of interpretive literature written by medieval Muslim scholars. The first two are considered divine. The interpretive literature, the fiqh, is not.

The fiqh was meant to develop and change according to the time and place — it has internal methodologies for that to happen. It is not static, but flexible. No religion gets to be 1400 years old and the second largest in the world unless it’s flexible and adaptable.

The Qur’an is old. The fiqh books of jurisprudence are old. To modern eyes, they can look just as outdated as other ancient texts, including the Bible and Torah. That’s why, just like the Bible and the Torah, the Islamic texts must be read in their historical context.

Assuming all Muslims follow medieval Islamic rules today is like assuming that all Catholics follow 9th century canon law. Islam, like Christianity, has changed many times over the centuries, and it continues to change. Focusing only on the nutcases who advocate a return to medieval times is ignoring the vast majority of modern Muslims.

For example, stoning for adultery is a punishment that appears in fiqh, as well as early Judaic law. But it does not appear in the Qur’an. In Islam, therefore, stoning was a result of cultural norms imposed on the religious texts. Moreover, in the fiqh, though the punishment for adultery was stoning, adultery was made such a fantastically difficult crime to prove that the punishment was impossible to apply. Historically, stoning was very rarely implemented in the Islamic world, which is ironic, since today the Saudi and Iranian governments apply it as though they’d never heard of the strict Islamic constraints on it.

The vast majority of Muslims today do not believe in stoning people for adultery, and many are working hard to eradicate it. Stoning is horrific and has no place in our world. The miniscule percentage of Muslims who advocate it are imposing the medieval penalty while ignoring all the myriad limitations meant to make it inapplicable.

As for other scary stories attributed to shari’a, like honor killings, veiling of women, and female genital cutting, these are cultural practices and not Islamic. They are practiced by non-Muslims of certain cultures as well as Muslims.

Shari’a is a set of religious principles and is not the law of the land anywhere in the world. The 50-some Muslim-majority countries are all constitutional states and nearly all of them have civil codes (many of these based on the French system). Being Muslim does not require a governmental imposition of something called “shari’a law,” any more than being a Christian requires the implementation of “Biblical law” (though there are, of course, a tiny minority of both Christians and Muslims who do advocate such things, including Sarah Palin).

As for Islam being a political system, there is nothing in the Qur’an about an “Islamic state,” and the Prophet himself never tried to implement an “Islamic state,” despite hysterical accusations to the contrary. Those under his leadership practiced a variety of religions.

Traditionally, in the Islamic world, the institutions that governed were always separate from the institutions that developed religion. In fact, they often checked and balanced one another. Although no civilization has been free from all conflict, every Islamic empire was a multi-religious, multicultural empire, in which religious minorities were governed by their own laws.

The term “Islam as a religion and a state” really only became popular in the 1920s, as a reaction to Western colonization of the Muslim world. In fact, Islam contains plenty of concepts consistent with modern democracy — for example, shura (consultation) and aqd (a contract between the governed and the governing). In other words, Muslims can be perfectly comfortable in America, following state and federal laws.

The Qur’an contains many verses advocating religious tolerance, too, though the anti-Islam protesters won’t believe it. The Qur’an says that: God could have made everyone into one people, but elected not to (11:118); God made us into different nations and tribes so that we can learn from one another (49:13); there is no compulsion in religion (2:256); and that we should say, “to you your religion, to me mine” (109:6).

The only verses about fighting in the Qur’an refer specifically to the polytheistic Arab tribes who were trying to kill the Prophet in the 7th century. So the Islamophobes who look in the Qur’an for the fighting verses and assume that these verses refer to them personally are simply being narcissistic. Contrary to counting Jews and Christians as “infidels,” the Qur’an repeatedly commands particular respect of Jews and Christians. It is established in Islam that you don’t need to be Muslim to go to heaven.

Repeating a lie over and over again doesn’t make it true; but it certainly results in people believing the lie. That’s what the Islam-haters are counting on. That, and the ignorance about Islamic tenets.

So the best thing to do is find out what Islam really is about. Talk to a Muslim in person. Read an introduction to Islam (try a fun one like mine). Read Loonwatch to read about the holes in the anti-Islamic rhetoric. Or take a look at the University of Georgia’s informational website on Islam, for some quick answers and further reading. If you read the anti-Islam fear-mongering websites, all you’ll learn will be tall tales.

Bigotry may be a human tendency, but America has never stood for bigotry. I believe in an America that stands for pluralism and multicultural understanding. The hysteria and hate toward Muslims – resulting in several acts of violence against Muslims just this week, such as a stabbing and arson – is un-American. We must stop it, and the first step is understanding and education.

Sumbul Ali-Karamali is an attorney with an additional degree in Islamic law, as well as the author of “The Muslim Next Door: the Qur’an, the Media, and that Veil Thing.”

Dear Loonwatchers you may have noticed that the site was down for a few hours, we are sorry for the inconvenience as the site was under maintenance. We are now open for your reading pleasure!

As if to cement our embrace of such seemingly imported notions, Geert Wilders, the rabidly anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim politician from the far-right “Freedom” Party of the Netherlands, has been invited to speak at a memorial rally at Ground Zero on Sept. 11. This is a man who has declared war on immigration from Muslim nations, who was once banned from the U.K. for his positions, who has called Islam “fascist” and who told the Guardian in 2008 that Islam was “the ideology of a retarded culture.” He has, according to his website, agreed to appear at the New York rally next month.

The reason for this discomfort and questioning, he says, is because “Islam is from now on part of the ‘internal’ landscape of the West, not only an outsider, and this is a hard pill to swallow for a ‘Judeo-Christian’ or ‘secular’ West.”

Ha’aretz reporter Anshel Pfeffer reported on the remarks of prominent Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who said in his weekly radio address:

“May our enemies and haters come to an end. May Abu Mazen [Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas] and all those wicked men be lost from the earth. May God smite them with the plague of pestilence, including all those Palestinians.

Wow. He prayed to God for pestilence to afflict “all those Palestinians.” Pfeffer continued:

No better, no worse than previous utterances by the venerable rabbi, 90 in two weeks and still going strong. He has said similar things over the years about Arabs and other non-Jews, singling out for particular attention not only their leaders, but also some Israeli Jewish ones, including the present prime minister.

Yet, this time was different, because Israeli and Palestininan leaders are currently engaged in peace talks with the goal of reaching a final settlement within one year. Thus, his remarks were widely condemned, as Pfeffer explains:

This week, though, the weekly sermon drew wider attention, thanks to its timing, on the eve of the Israeli-Palestinian summit in Washington. So not only did the local Israeli media record his latest pearls of wisdom, with a couple of left-wing politicians issuing the standard condemnations, but the Palestinian leadership also responded angrily, the U.S. State Department denounced the “deeply offensive inflammatory statements,” and even such august bodies as the Anti-Defamation League and the Zionist Federation of Great Britain joined the chorus.

Yet, you know who’s silence has been deafening? Robert Spencer’s, of course!

There has been no such condemnation of the Rabbi’s comments against Palestinians. No condemnation of what appears to be the calling for genocide against an entire people by a very prominent Rabbi. No condemnation of quite inflammatory statements from a religious leader against another people.

Yet, what if he were Muslim? What if a Muslim cleric had recently said something similar about Jews? Spencer would have been all over it. He would have posted it on his blog and spread the contention that this is the true face of Islam, and not just a twisting of its tenes. Spencer would have been screaming, “Islamic Anti-Semitism!”

This is not to deny that such anti-Semitism does exist in the Muslim world, and some Muslim clerics have spewed forth horribly hateful things aginst Jews, Christians, and even other Muslims. Yet, rational people can see that these clerics and fanatics are an aberration, a mutation, and not the norm. Except, it seems, for Robert Spencer.

Fast Company’s Mark Borden tweets this terrifying photo of a rented, decommissioned missile that “Ground Zero” “Mosque” protesters are driving around the proposed Islamic community center site today, and perhaps indefinitely. Take that, “productive interfaith dialogue” prospects!

Send an email to Jim Newell, the author of this post, at newell@gawker.com.

The Passions (And Perils) Of Pamela Geller

Doug Chandler

Pamela Geller had had enough.

The right-wing blogger, whose vehement opposition to the planned Islamic community center near Ground Zero (a “mega-mosque” in her parlance) has earned Geller national headlines, rose from her seat at a Midtown diner last week and, fed up with the line of questioning, stormed out of a Jewish Week interview.

“Shame on you,” she shouted, “shame on you. Stop slamming the good guys.”

A journalist’s offense? Asking questions about her accuracy and her red-meat rhetoric.

The sense of drama seems, in part, to define Geller, who can be seen on the Internet frolicking in a bikini and posing in a skin-tight Superwoman outfit. Her blog “Atlas Shrugs” has referred to Democrats as “National Socialists,” has sided with Slobodan Milosevic, the late Serbian president charged with war crimes, and has claimed that Elena Kagan, the country’s newest Supreme Court justice and a Jew, admired “an architect” of Nazism. She has also likened President Barack Obama’s opposition to settlement growth on the West Bank to preparations for the Holocaust and has provided space to one writer’s view that Obama is Malcolm X’s love child.

Geller’s politics and tone have drawn a growing number of visitors to her blog, which she uses to promote other projects, including a provocatively named group, Stop Islamization of America, and her recently published book, “The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America.”

But it’s her opposition to the proposed Islamic center — an effort she helped fuel and now helps to lead — that has arguably won Geller the most attention. Recent articles in the Washington Post and on Salon.com have noted that Geller was among the handful of people calling attention to the project nine months ago, before it hit the national radar and when the host of a Fox News show could still interview Daisy Khan, wife of the center’s leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, and wish her well.

Since then, Geller’s right-wing fans have hailed her as prophetic, especially for warning of the dangers posed by Muslims in this country, while progressives, moderates and at least some embarrassed conservatives see her as something entirely different: a radical activist who comes across as shrill, crude and offensive and who fails to distinguish between Islamic fanatics and the religion itself.

Those emotions are bound to escalate in the next week, as Geller plans a Sept. 11 rally in Lower Manhattan to protest the Islamic center, known as Park51.

But few people are likely to guess that the woman who has stirred so much passion is also a Jewish day school mom raised by a Yiddishkeit family in the Five Towns enclave of Hewlett, L.I.

For her part, Geller dismisses any suggestion that she put the whole story in motion as “nonsensical” and as “condescending to the American people, as if they don’t know their own minds. It’s an issue of common decency,” she said while sitting in the back of a Midtown diner. “And you can see that in the [polling] numbers,” which show 70 percent of Americans opposed to the project.

The one thing Geller does acknowledge is that “no one else was talking” about the center as she began addressing the issue on Atlas Shrugs. But no one should assume that Geller’s blog posts made the story the one it is today. Instead, as she sees it, awareness of the matter simply grew and, with it, opposition to the center.

But Geller has done more than simply write about the project. She has also organized much of the opposition, showing up at the May 25 community board meeting that heard public debate over the issue, convening the first rally against the center, in early June, and now, of course, planning next week’s rally. Geller attended the community board meeting with Robert Spencer, an author and fellow blogger with whom she often partners, where they and others often shouted down speakers in favor of the center, creating an atmosphere that reminded one board member, the son of a German Jewish refugee, of the Brown Shirt movement.

She has also debated the issue on Fox News, “The Joy Behar Show” and other TV programs, where she often raises her voice and talks over the other guests.

In person, though, the 51-year-old blogger comes across as charming, demure and even subdued, as long as she isn’t questioned or challenged too vigorously.

Like many New Yorkers, Geller appears to divide her life between “Before 9/11” and “After 9/11.” Before the terror attacks, she worked on the business side of the newspaper industry, spending the 1980s at the Daily News before moving to the New York Observer. She was mostly apolitical, although, if anything, she said, she leaned left, seeing everything “through the prism of abortion.”

All that changed after 9/11, Geller recalled, saying she “felt guilty that I didn’t know who attacked my country.” She began reading all the material she could about Islam, Geller said, citing such authors as Martin Gilbert, the British historian; Bat Ye’or, an Egyptian-born scholar whose politics are decidedly right wing; and Ibn Warraq, a former Muslim from Pakistan.

“I spent years studying the matter before I started blogging,” Geller said, adding that the more she read, the more she realized that journalists and historians were “whitewashing Islam.”

Today, Geller describes herself as a keen believer in individual rights — “the well from which all things spring” — and says the name of her blog, launched in 2004, reflects that. The name refers to the title of Ayn Rand’s most famous book, which is an inspiration for Geller. She also calls herself an ardent Zionist.

Much of her blog’s focus, though, springs from Geller’s view of Islam, which, is portrayed as a monolithic religion that can only be interpreted in a single way — the one most scholars associate with radical, Wahhabi Muslims.

“It’s not like Judaism, where you have these different levels of observance,” Geller said. “Islam is Islam. … There’s no way you can be a devout Muslim and not support jihad.”

The only moderate Muslims are those who are secular, Geller said. And she dismisses any Muslim who claims otherwise by insisting that he’s a liar — a follower of taqiyya, the Islamic principle that allows Muslims to mislead their enemies, according to Geller.

Comments such as those, by Geller and others, leave at least one local Muslim in disbelief.

“They talk about Islam as if it’s monolithic,” said Qanta Ahmed, a British-born physician who often writes about religion for the Huffington Post and other sites. “We’re 1.5 billion individuals from 57 countries and countless cultures.”

“‘Devout’ means devotion to one’s faith, and you can be very devout without being radical,” said Ahmed, whose articles have concerned such topics as the friendship and inspiration she has drawn from a number of Jews, including a rabbi; the admiration she often feels for Israel; and the hatred toward Jews conveyed in Palestinian textbooks and TV shows.

Discussing jihad, a word that means “struggle,” Ahmed said it’s not even mentioned in the five pillars of Islam, “the absolute basis of being a Muslim,” and there are three kinds of jihad to which Muslims refer. The most important, known as the “greater jihad,” is the internal struggle within each individual to be good, while the “lesser jihad” concerns the religious permission Muslims need to defend themselves against military attack.

“There is no such thing as a holy war in Islam,”Ahmed continued. “There are only just and unjust wars, and Islam is very clear about that.”

On the matter of faith, Geller herself is not especially observant, calling her children far more religious than she is. She sends two of her children to Jewish day school, although she prefers that any further information about her kids remain private — a consequence, she added, of the death threats she says she has received.

She grew up in a Conservative Jewish home — “more Yiddishkeit than by the book,” she said — and has visited Israel twice: once during college and, again, in 2006, when she blogged about Israel’s war with Hezbollah. But her views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are just as right-wing as her views on American politics.

In Geller’s eyes, Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] are Jewish land; there are no settlers, only Jews living in the Jewish homeland; and the area’s Muslims should return the Temple Mount to Jewish hands.

Geller has also taken aim at Jewish leaders in the United States, comparing mainstream organizations to Jews before the Holocaust who ignored all the danger signs. She has also called J Street and the National Jewish Democratic Council “kapos,” a reference to the Jews in Europe who aided the Nazis.

Geller’s fans include Lori Lowenthal Marcus, founder of the right-wing, pro-Israel Z Street, who said “she’s definitely serving a need. She’s an indefatigable fighter and very brazen, which is necessary to raise the profile of the issues.”

Another view comes from Todd Gitlin, a progressive scholar who teaches journalism and sociology at Columbia University, who considers Geller part of “a long history” of firebrands devoted to “this sort of agitation. … These are people who have a fixation on some paranoid scenario,” he said, and they often become a focal point for wider passions.

While not discussing Geller specifically, Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, a neoconservative think tank, said the tenor of the conversation regarding Islam in recent months has distressed him. The “good part” is that Americans are now pushing back against Islamacists, or radical Muslims, but the “bad part” is that many are now doing so “in a crude way,” calling Mohammed a pedophile and referring to all Muslims as terrorists.

Many of today’s bloggers, Pipes said, “came of age on 9/11” and haven’t done the serious study of Islam that he and others have. As a result, he added, much of what they write is based on ignorance.

For her part, Geller defends the tone of her blog, calling Atlas Shrugs “my living room and kitchen” — a place where she can kick back and yell, like some people shout at their TV. Her book and opinion pieces “are more studied and more measured.”

“There’s no gray area with me,” Geller said. “I know why I think what I think.”

Rabbi Yizhak Shapira

(hat tip: D. Bartholomew)

How to Kill Goyim and Influence People: Israeli Rabbis Defend Book’s Shocking Religious Defense of Killing Non-Jews (with Video)

by Max Blumenthal

August 30, 2010

When I went into the Jewish religious book emporium, Pomeranz, in central Jerusalem to inquire about the availability of a book called Torat Ha’Melech, or the King’s Torah, a commotion immediately ensued. “Are you sure you want it?” the owner, M. Pomeranz, asked me half-jokingly. “The Shabak [Israel's internal security service] is going to want a word with you if you do.” As customers stopped browsing and began to stare in my direction, Pomeranz pointed to a security camera affixed to a wall. “See that?” he told me. “It goes straight to the Shabak!”

As soon as it was published late last year,Torat Ha’Melech sparked a national uproar. The controversy began when an Israeli tabloid panned the book’s contents as “230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guidebook for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew.” According to the book’s author, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, “Non-Jews are “uncompassionate by nature” and should be killed in order to “curb their evil inclinations.” “If we kill a gentile who has has violated one of the seven commandments… there is nothing wrong with the murder,” Shapira insisted. Citing Jewish law as his source (or at least a very selective interpretation of it) he declared: “There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”

In January, Shapira was briefly detained by the Israeli police, while two leading rabbis who endorsed the book, Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef, were summoned to interrogations by the Shabak. However, the rabbis refused to appear at the interrogations, essentially thumbing their noses at the state and its laws. And the government did nothing. The episode raised grave questions about the willingness of the Israeli government to confront the ferociously racist swathe of the country’s rabbinate. “Something like this has never happened before, even though it seems as if everything possible has already happened,” Israeli commentator Yossi Sarid remarked with astonishment. “Two rabbis [were] summoned to a police investigation, and announc[ed] that they will not go. Even settlers are kind enough to turn up.”

In response to the rabbis’ public rebuke of the state’s legal system, the Israeli Attorney General and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu kept silent. Indeed, since the publication of Torat Ha’Melech, Netanyahu has strenuously avoided criticizing its contents or the author’s leading supporters. Like so many prime ministers before him, he has been cowed into submission by Israel’s religious nationalist community. But Netanyahu appears to be particularly impotent. His weakness stems from the fact that the religious nationalist right figures prominently in his governing coalition and comprises a substantial portion of his political base. For Netanyahu, a confrontation with the rabid rabbis could amount to political suicide, or could force him into an alliance with centrist forces who do not share his commitment to the settlement enterprise in the West Bank.

On August 18, a pantheon of Israel’s top fundamentalist rabbis flaunted their political power during an ad hoc congress they convened at Jerusalem’s Ramada Renaissance hotel. Before an audience of 250 supporters including the far-right Israeli Knesset member Michael Ben-Ari, the rabbis declared in the name of the Holy Torah that would not submit to any attempt by the government to regulate their political activities — even and especially if those activities included inciting terrorist attacks against non-Jews. As one wizened rabbi after another rose up to inveigh against the government’s investigation of Torat Ha’Melech until his voice grew hoarse, the gathering degenerated into calls for murdering not just non-Jews, but secular Jews as well.

Watch the video (article continues below):

“The obligation to sacrifice your life is above all others when fighting those who wish to destroy the authority of the Torah,” bellowed Rabbi Yehoshua Shapira, head of the yeshiva in the Tel Aviv suburb of Ramat Gan. “It is not only true against non-Jews who are trying to destroy it but against Jewish people from any side.”

The government-funded terror academy

The disturbing philosophy expressed in Torat Ha’Melech emerged from the fevered atmosphere of a settlement called Yitzhar located in the northern West Bank near the Palestinian city of Nablus. Shapira leads the settlement’s Od Yosef Chai yeshiva, holding sway over a small army of fanatics who are eager to lash out at the Palestinians tending to their crops and livestock in the valleys below them. One of Shapira’s followers, an American immigrant named Jack Teitel, has confessed to murdering two innocent Palestinians and attempting to the kill the liberal Israeli historian Ze’ev Sternhell with a mail bomb. Teitel is suspected of many more murders, including an attack on a Tel Aviv gay community center.

Despite its apparent role as a terror training institute, Od Yosef Chai has raked in nearly fifty thousand dollars from the Israeli Ministry of Social Affairs since 2007, while the Ministry of Education has pumped over 250 thousand dollars into the yeshiva’s coffers between 2006 and 2007. The yeshiva has also benefited handsomely from donations from a tax-exempt American non-profit called the Central Fund of Israel. Located inside the Marcus Brothers Textiles store in midtown Manhattan, the Central Fund transferred at least thirty thousand to Od Yosef Chai between 2007 and 2008.

Though he does not name “the enemy” in the pages of his book, Shapira’s longstanding connection to terrorist attacks against Palestinian civilians exposes the true identity of his targets. In 2006, Shapira was briefly held by Israeli police for urging his supporters to murder all Palestinians over the age of 13. Two years later, according to the Israeli daily Haaretz, he signed a rabbinical letter in support of Israeli Jews who had brutally assaulted two Arab youths on the country’s Holocaust Remembrance Day. That same year, Shapira was arrested under suspicion that he helped orchestrate a rocket attack against a Palestinian village near Nablus. Though he was released, Shapira’s name arose in connection with another act of terror, when in January, the Israeli police raided his settlement seeking the vandals who set fire to a nearby mosque. After arresting ten settlers, the Shabak held five of Shapira’s confederates under suspicion of arson.

Friends in high places

Despite his longstanding involvement in terrorism, or perhaps because of it, Shapira counts Israel’s leading fundamentalist rabbis among his supporters. His most well-known backer is Dov Lior the leader of the Shavei-Hevron yeshiva at Kiryat Arba, a radical Jewish settlement near the occupied Palestinian city of Hebron and a hotbed of Jewish terrorism. Lior has vigorously endorsed Torat Ha’Melech, calling it “very relevant, especially in this time.”

Lior’s enthusiasm for Shapira’s tract stems from his own eliminationist attitude toward non-Jews. For example, while Lior served as the IDF’s top rabbi, he instructed soldiers: “There is no such thing as civilians in wartime… A thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew’s fingernail!” Indeed, there are only a few non-Jews whose lives Lior would demand to be spared. They are captured Palestinian militants who, as he once suggested, could be used as subjects for live human medical experiments.

Otherwise, Lior appears content to watch Palestinians perish as they did at the muzzle of Dr. Baruch Goldstein’s machine gun in 1994. Goldstein, who massacred 29 Palestinians and wounded 150 in a shooting spree while they prayed in Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs mosque, was a compatriot and neighbor of Lior in the settlement of Kiryat Arba. At Goldstein’s funeral, Lior celebrated the massacre as an act carried out “to sanctify the holy name of God.” He then extolled Goldstein as “a righteous man.” Thanks to Lior’s efforts, a shrine to Goldstein was constructed in center of Kiryat Arba so that locals could celebrate the killer’s deeds and pass his legacy down to future generations.

Though Lior’s inflammatory statements resulted in his being barred from running for election to the Supreme Rabbinical Council, according to journalist Daniel Estrin, the rabbi remains “a respected figure among many mainstream ZIonists.” By extension, he maintains considerable influence among religious elements in the IDF. In 2008, when the IDF’s chief rabbi, Brigadier General Avichai Ronski, brought a group of military intelligence officers to Hebron for a special tour, he concluded the day with a private meeting with Lior, who was allowed to revel the officers with his views on modern warfare — “no such thing as civilians in wartime.”

Besides Lior, Torat Ha’Melech has earned support from another nationally prominent fundamentalist rabbi: Yaakov Yosef. Yosef is the leader of the Hazon Yaakov Yeshiva in Jerusalem and a former member of Knesset. Perhaps more significantly, he is the son of Ovadiah Yosef, the former chief rabbi of Israel and spiritual leader of the Shas Party that forms a key segment of Netanyahu’s governing coalition.

Yaakov Yosef has brought his influence to bear in defense of Torat Ha’Melech, insisting at the August 18 convention in Jerusalem that the book was no different than the Hagadah that all Jews read from on the holiday of Passover. The Hagadah contains passages about killing non-Jews and so does the Bible, Yosef reminded his audience. “Does anyone want to change the Bible?” he asked.

Bibi buckles

Only days before direct negotiations in Washington between Israel and the Palestinian Authority planned for early September, Yaakov Yosef’s 89-year-old father, Ovadiah delivered his weekly sermon. With characteristic vitriol, he  declared: “All these evil people should perish from this world… God should strike them with a plague, them and these Palestinians.”

The remarks have sparked an international furor and earned a stern rebuke from Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. “While the PLO is ready to resume negotiations in seriousness and good faith,” Erekat remarked, “a member of the Israeli government is calling for our destruction.”

Palestinian Israeli member of Knesset Jamal Zehalka subsequently demanded that the Israeli Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein put Yosef on trial for incitement. “If, heaven forbid, a Muslim spiritual leader were to make anti-Jewish comments of this sort,” Zehalka said, “he would be arrested immediately.”

Here was a perfect opportunity for Netanyahu to demonstrate sincerity about negotiations by  shedding an extremist ally in the name of securing peace. All he had to do was forcefully reject Yosef’s genocidal comments — a feat made all the easier by the White House’s condemnation of the rabbi. But the Israeli Prime Minister ducked for political cover instead, issuing a canned statement instead of a condemnation. “Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef’s remarks do not reflect Netanyahu’s views,” the statement read, “nor do they reflect the position of the Israeli government.”

By refusing to cut Yosef loose, his party remains a central actor in the Israeli government. Thus the statement by Netanyahu was not only weak. It was false.

More European loonieness. An Austrian right-wing party has created a game that takes aim at minarets and muezzins.

Austrian Anti-Muslim Game Stokes Outrage

A right-wing Austrian political party’s published a flash game in which the countryside is overrun with minarets and mosques and players must stop their construction. Because nationalism and xenophobia’s so much more fun when it’s in the German language!

Moschee Baba (“Bye-Bye Mosque”) is a minute-long, shooting-gallery type game in which a stop sign is clicked on a minaret, mosque, or muezzin (the guys who sound the morning calls to prayer). It’s a political ad for the Freedom Party in the Styrian province; regional elections are coming at the end of the month.

No one’s killed and nothing’s destroyed in the game, but its tone is pretty hateful and paranoid and it’s pissed off political opponents but good. Social Democrats, the Green Party and the Muslim community have demanded the game’s removal and an investigation for “incitement.”

The game is, of course, a gross caricature of the reality of the situation in Austria. Only four mosques with a visible minaret exist in the country. None are in Styria, whose population is 1.2 percent Muslim.

After the game ends, it serves players with a push poll, asking if there should be a ban on minaret construction, wearing of burqas, niqabs or other Islamic garments, and if Muslims should sign some oath accepting Austrian law’s primacy over the Koran. Fun stuff.

Far-Right Anti-Mosque Video Game Triggers Outrage In Austria [Reuters]

Send an email to the author of this post at owen@kotaku.com.

Also see AlJazeera: Fury in Austria at anti-Mosque Game

Imagine if Muslims had put up a similar sign, or if Muslim women were scowling at visitors who dressed in daisy dukes and halter tops. Islamophobes like Bikini Vlogger Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer would be howling to the moon about how Muslims are trying to take over America and impose Islam on the masses. (hat tip: ELi)

Welcome to Kiryas Joel: Please Dress Accordingly

KIRYAS JOEL, N.Y. (CBS 2) – You may never see a more unusual “Welcome” sign in Orange County.

A sign in Kiryas Joel, the Hasidic Jewish enclave, is evoking mixed reaction.

Monroe resident Jessica Pantalemon stopped to cash a check in Kiryas Joel wearing a bright pink tank top and white shorts. She said she noticed scowling faces.

“Just from the women, mostly,” she said. “The guys let me walk by, the women stop and stare, start whispering to each other…I just ignore them.”

The tradition in the village of Satmar Hasidic Jews is modesty. Even on the hottest of days, most residents cover up from head to toe. But visitors don’t necessarily follow that tradition, and now the main synagogue is asking them to comply.

Congregation Yetev Lev posted signs at the village’s entrance – in both English and Spanish – asking outsiders to cover their legs and arms, use appropriate language and maintain gender separation in public.

“It’s a way of respect,” said one resident.

In fact, most residents say it’s simply a polite reminder to respect the local culture, and many visitors take the signs in that spirit.

“It’s nice to request that people behave in a way respect to their beliefs,” said Barry Kaufmann of Wantagh.

But the sign struck a sour note with some.

“They’re telling us that we can’t come into their community unless we dress a certain way,” said Adia Parker, an Orange County resident.

“I feel like my constitutional rights are being violated,” said Tyrone Wheeler, a day laborer in the village seeking work.

A village trustee pointed out the signs said nothing about consequences for violating these guidelines – because there are no consequences.

“We’re not threatening anyone,” said Rabbi Jacob Freund. “Everybody is free to come in and be the same, like all other places in the United States.”

So dressing like Jessica Pantalemon may elicit a scowl, but it won’t earn you a summons.

The New York Civil Liberties Union said because the signs were paid for privately and are not on public land and they pass constitutional muster.

Pastor Terry Jones’ face is becoming all too familiar these days. The Harley Davidson riding, handle bar mustachioed loon pastor has not only called for the Koran to be burned but also produced this highly bizarre video,

We know now that the currency that Pastor Jones thrives on and attempts to capitalize on is “shock” coupled with demagoguery. Does the white haired Jones really not understand why it is offensive for a White person to say the N-word?

He surely remembers the Civil Rights movement and the Jim Crow era, doesn’t he? He plays naive in the beginning of the video, playing off of the dictionary definition of the N-word but ignores or just plain fails to mention the historical import of the N-word, how it was employed by Whites to demean, subjugate, humiliate and scorn Blacks.

This video is particularly interesting when we came across this article at the Friendly Atheist site that questioned Jones on whether he has been treated unfairly in the media,

Have any of the media reports of this event portrayed you unfairly or inaccurately? Would you like to set the record straight on any particular issue?

We have been accused of being racist. We are not attacking a race. In other words, we are not attacking the Moslem. We love the Moslems and hope that they would come to true salvation. What we are attacking is Islam, the religion, and Sharia law, the political system.

Not a racist? What do you think?

(cross-posted from The Onion)

SALINA, KS—Local man Scott Gentries told reporters Wednesday that his deliberately limited grasp of Islamic history and culture was still more than sufficient to shape his views of the entire Muslim world.

Gentries, 48, said he had absolutely no interest in exposing himself to further knowledge of Islamic civilization or putting his sweeping opinions into a broader context of any kind, and confirmed he was “perfectly happy” to make a handful of emotionally charged words the basis of his mistrust toward all members of the world’s second-largest religion.

“I learned all that really matters about the Muslim faith on 9/11,” Gentries said in reference to the terrorist attacks on the United States undertaken by 19 of Islam’s approximately 1.6 billion practitioners. “What more do I need to know to stigmatize Muslims everywhere as inherently violent radicals?”

“And now they want to build a mosque at Ground Zero,” continued Gentries, eliminating any distinction between the 9/11 hijackers and Muslims in general. “No, I won’t examine the accuracy of that statement, but yes, I will allow myself to be outraged by it and use it as evidence of these people’s universal callousness toward Americans who lost loved ones when the Twin Towers fell.”

“Even though I am not one of those people,” he added.

When told that the proposed “Ground Zero mosque” is actually a community center two blocks north of the site that would include, in addition to a public prayer space, a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant, and athletic facilities, Gentries shook his head and said, “I know all I’m going to let myself know.”

Gentries explained that it “didn’t take long” to find out as much about the tenets of Islam as he needed to. He said he knew Muslims stoned their women for committing adultery, trained for terrorist attacks at fundamentalist madrassas, and believed in jihad, which Gentries described as the thing they used to justify killing infidels.

“All Muslims are at war with America, and I will resist any attempt to challenge that assertion with potentially illuminating facts,” said Gentries, who threatened to leave the room if presented with the number of Muslims who live peacefully in the United States, serve in the country’s armed forces, or were victims themselves of the 9/11 attacks. “Period.”

“If you don’t believe me, wait until they put your wife in a burka,” Gentries continued in reference to the face-and-body-covering worn by a small minority of Muslim women and banned in the universities of Turkey, Tunisia, and Syria. “Or worse, a rape camp. That’s right: For reasons I am content being totally unable to articulate, I am choosing to associate Muslims with rape camps.”

Over the past decade, Gentries said he has taken pains to avoid personal interactions or media that might have the potential to compromise his point of view. He told reporters that the closest he had come to confronting a contrary standpoint was tuning in to the first few seconds of an interview with a moderate Muslim cleric before hastily turning off the television.

“I almost gave in and listened to that guy defend Islam with words I didn’t want to hear,” Gentries said. “But then I remembered how much easier it is to live in a world of black-and-white in which I can assign the label of ‘other’ to someone and use him as a vessel for all my fears and insecurities.”

Added Gentries, “That really put things back into perspective.”