Top Menu

Sheila Musaji: Geller & Spencer Attempt to Turn Congressional Race into a Religious War

More religion-baiting and Islamophobic anti-Muslim hate-mongering from the premiere religious bigots of the day, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller.

Geller & Spencer attempt to turn Congressional race into a religious war

by Sheila Musaji (TAM)

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are outraged that a political campaign in New Jersey has included the issue of one candidates support for Israel.

Both Spencer and Geller refer their readers to an article in the Washington Free Beacon about the democratic primary race between Reps. Steve Rothman and Bill Pascrell.

That one-sided article noted that “For the first time in recent American political history, we are witnessing a proxy battle between supporters and detractors of Israel, and it’s playing out in the Ninth District of New Jersey,” said one veteran campaign strategist who is knowledgeable about the district.  And, it noted an ad by an Arab group in the community supporting Pascrell that produced an ad urging the “Arab diaspora community” to “elect the friend of the Arabs” and billed the race as “the most important election in the history of the [Arab] community.”  It also refers to an article by Aref Assaf published in February titled Rothman is Israel’s man in District 9.  It also included this quote “I don’t read Arabic well, but I am pretty sure that the pro-Pascrell posters that have appeared across the district are not calling to elect the candidate who supports a strong relationship between America and the only democracy in the Middle East, one which is rooted in progressive Western values—women’s rights, gay rights, tolerance, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.,” said Josh Block, a Democratic strategist and former spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

It is impossible to believe that Mr. Block was unaware that it was a letter from a group of Rabbis that began this entire discussion.  It is also impossible to believe that the author of this article, Adam Kredo, was also unaware of the implications of that letter (since he mentions it later in his article).  Nevertheless, Kredo’s article was the basis for both Geller and Spencer’s posts.

Geller says

A New Jersey congressional race is becoming a referendum on a candidate’s Judaism. Muslims are going after a Jewish congressman. Islamic Jew-hatred rears its ugly [be]head for the first time in a congressional race. But believe you me, it won’t be the last time. Islamic Jew-Hatred—it’s in the quran.

It’s very ugly, and the enemedia, self-enforcing the sharia, is not covering it. And the local press is giving the Islamic supremacists all the column inches the haters demand. Aref Assaf, president of the New Jersey-based American Arab Forum, is a vile nazi who has been getting the lion’s share of press.

Assaf wrote in an oped in the New Jersey Star Ledger that the Jewish candidate under attack, Steve Rothman, “is using his support of Israel as the centerpiece of his campaign.” It is Assaf and his Jew-hating constiuency [sic] that are making it all about Rothman’s Judaism and Israel. The Muslim Jew-haters are making it the centerpiece of their campaign. Rothman “has consciously avoided adding fuel to the ethnic fire by focusing instead on his congressional record, note political observers in both New Jersey and Washington, D.C.”

Spencer titles his article “We want this Jew out of office”: Islamic antisemitism invades New Jersey Congressional primary race and calls this An ugly new development in American politics: Muslim voters lining up to defeat a Jewish candidate.

It would be worthwhile to read the actual article written by Assef that would provoke Geller to call him a “vile nazi” and “Muslim Jew-hater”.  Here is what Assef wrote

It may be Kosher but is it illegal? As the Record reported on February 17, 2012, several presidents of Orthodox synagogues are urging the Republican-registered members of their respective congregations to switch party affiliation in order to vote for Steve Rothman. Rep. Steve Rothman is battling fellow Democrat Rep. Bill Pascrell for the newly redrawn Ninth Congressional District.

The primary elections are set for June 5 and because the district is heavily democratic, the winner will most likely carry the November elections too. The Record’s article is based on a letter first posted in the Passaic Clifton Jewish Community News. The Record calls into question the legality of such a letter signed by well-known religious leaders and debates the possible IRS code violations that such a position entails. Skirting the gray line of legality, these letters do carry the weight of the religious institutions the signers represent and when you consider the Orthodox community in Passaic is closely-knit, even when the names are not attached to their religious affiliations, they are still a known entity. While religious institutions may engage in local, state, and even federal elections, there are clear guidelines they must not cross to maintain their tax-exempt status under Section 501 of the IRS code, which governs non-profit and tax exempt entities. Such entities are clearly prohibited from endorsing political candidates and/or contributing to their campaign funds and must provide equal access to all competing candidates.

The question remains when such activities exceed the limit of the law and spill over being a mere informational letter. As quoted in the Record, one of the letter signers, Akiva Hirth, said, “It’s a free country,” adding that “religious leaders were merely communicating with their congregants, not forcing them to take any action.” Yet a closer read tells a different story; and I quote from the original letter: “Our community has the unique opportunity to significantly impact this race. The choice is clear – support the candidate who best understands our needs and interests. Congressman Steve Rothman is the obvious choice in this Primary election.” This is clearly a political endorsement. The IRS is called upon to investigate the legal ramifications of such a violation.

It may turn out to be a non-issue, but I am puzzled that so many Jewish Rabbis would and for mere temporary political expediency encourage their congregation to go against their faith and register Democratic. Like observant American Muslims who also favor the Republican Party, Orthodox Jews would choose the Republican platform for strictly religious reasons dealing with abortion, homosexuality, gay marriage, and support for Israel. I would not want my Imam to urge me to change my party label so irreverently. It’s just plain dishonest.

But if it is Kosher for Orthodox rabbis to preach to their members on political candidates, then it must be Halal for Muslim Imams to do the same. We will soon find out if Muslim religious leaders will reach out to their respective congregations. Imams, like rabbis, wield disproportionate leverage in and uncontested access to their congregations.

American Muslims are said to be evenly split between those registered as Democrat and Republicans. If Republican Muslims in New Jersey emulate the Jewish voters, and assuming their numerical symmetry, they will at least cancel out the ‘converted’ Jewish votes. Real democratic voters will then decide the election outcome. I will be reporting back on developments.

Unquestionably, this primary election is pitting two otherwise harmoniously coexisting communities: the Muslim and Jewish communities. To what extent the Muslim community will be energized by these developments will have to be determined. As total and blind support for Israel becomes the only reason for choosing Rothman, voters who do not view the elections in this prism will need to take notice. Loyalty to a foreign flag is not loyalty to America’s.

The incident that Assef was responding to was reported on in an article titled Letter asks Orthodox Jews to switch parties and support Rothman.  Here is the text of that article:

PASSAIC — The leaders of Orthodox Jewish synagogues in the city are urging their congregants to switch parties from Republican to Democrat so they can vote for Rep. Steve Rothman in the June 5 primary against Rep. Bill Pascrell.

A letter endorsed by 15 presidents of Passaic shuls was mailed last week to the homes of Orthodox Jews in the city’s Passaic Park section who are registered Republicans. In the letter, the presidents urge them to register as Democrats by the April 11 deadline so they so they can support Rothman, who is considered more pro-Israel than Pascrell.

“Our community has the unique opportunity to significantly impact this race,” the letter reads. “The choice is clear — support the candidate who best understands our needs and interests. Congressman Steve Rothman is the obvious choice in this Primary election.”

The letter, which carries the heading “A Message from Passaic’s Shul Presidents,” was paid for by the Rothman campaign. It notes that the redrawn boundaries of the 9th congressional district heavily favors Democrats. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will likely capture the seat in November.

The letter, which has also been published in the Passaic Clifton Jewish Community News, is an outgrowth of the recent endorsement of Rothman by Gary Schaer, a prominent member of Passaic’s Orthodox Jewish community who is also City Council president and a state assemblyman.

Although political leaders are free to endorse anyone they want, the letter raises questions about whether religious leaders violated the IRS guidelines that restrict religious non-profits from endorsing political candidates.

Section 501 of the IRS code says religious non-profits are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.” The code further prohibits “voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates…”

Marc Owens, a Washington, D.C tax lawyer who headed the IRS’ tax exemption unit from 1990 to 2000, said the issue is whether the synagogue leaders were acting as individuals or on behalf of their religious institutions when they wrote the letter.  “Is it the religious institution speaking or are they speaking as individuals?” Owens said.

Only one of the 15 synagogue presidents who signed the letter could be reached for comment on Friday. In a brief telephone interview, Akiva Hirth said he signed the letter because he was within his rights to do so.  “It’s a free country,” Hirth said, adding that religious leaders were merely communicating with their congregants, not forcing them to take any action.

The Jewish vote is considered crucial for both Rothman and Pascrell, who are locked in a tight battle in the Democratic primary. Spokesmen for both candidates played down the issue on Friday.

Paul Swibinski, a spokesman for Rothman, defended the letter as a legitimate voter registration tactic. “I don’t see anything improper here at all,” he said. “There are no names of synagogues or temples listed in the letter. It is clearly a personal endorsement from leaders of these synagogues. It is not an endorsement by the synagogues themselves.”

Pascrell wasn’t eager to make an issue of it, either. “If anyone is violating tax laws, then we clearly have a concern,” he said.

It would seem that simply following the timeline of events clarifies this whole incident.  A group of Jewish Rabbis raised the issue of a candidates support for Israel as a reason to vote for that candidate.  After they sent out a letter encouraging the Jewish community to support one candidate based on this issue, Aref Assaf wrote his article calling their actions into question on the basis of U.S. law.  He also expressed his sadness that such behavior in a local primary election “is pitting two otherwise harmoniously coexisting communities: the Muslim and Jewish communities” against each other.

It is sad to see this being made into a “religious issue” rather than a simple political issue.  Who is the best candidate to represent the citizens of the 9th district of New Jersey should be the issue.

Geller and Spencer are old hands at stirring the pot of religious bigotry in political campaigns.  This is simply the most recent example.

When Gary Boisclair ran a congressional campaign vs Keith Ellison that was based entirely on hatred of Muslims – Pamela Geller was upset at Youtube for pulling Boisclair’s anti-Muslim ad. Geller called it “enforcing Sharia” and she said More sharia (Islamic law): this is enforcement of blasphemy laws, do not insult Islam. How much more of our freedom are we going to allow them to seize?

When there was a furore over Keith Ellison’s use of the Qur’an in a photo opportunity after his swearing in as a Congressman – Robert Spencer wrote This is allegedly a political masterstroke by Ellison, but it really just begs the question. Thomas Jefferson, obviously, was not a Muslim. In his famous statement on religious freedom he wrote about whether one’s neighbor believed in one god or twelve “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” But what no one is willing to discuss here is whether the Qur’an and Islam really fit into that framework. When I have mentioned that it sanctions lying to unbelievers (3:28 and 16:106, in the mainstream understanding of those verses by Islamic theologians and schools of jurisprudence; cf. Ibn Kathir and many others), people have responded that the Bible is full of nasty stuff as well. But people aren’t swearing on the Bible because it is full of nasty stuff, or endorsing any of it that might actually be there. The idea of swearing on the Bible arises from Christian belief and is buttressed by Christian theology—Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant—that requires honesty and eschews all dishonesty as coming from the “Father of Lies.” The permissions to be dishonest in the Qur’an are not mitigated by Islamic belief, tradition, and theology, but are in fact reinforced—by Muhammad’s statements that “war is deceit” and that lying is permissible in wartime, and more.

In short, to swear on the Bible is to affirm, among other things, that one is part of a tradition, and to swear on the Qur’an does not amount to an affirmation of the same tradition, no matter how much Glenn Beck or Ed Koch or anyone wishes it does or assumes it does. Islamic teachers daily use the Qur’an to establish principles that differ radically from those of Judeo-Christian tradition. These questions need to be discussed in a forthright and honest manner by Ellison and by the mainstream media, instead of being swept under the rug or condemned as bigotry.”

The decent people of the 9th Congressional District of New Jersey don’t need such bigoted individuals involving themselves in this election and fueling the fires of mutual distrust and bigotry.

, , , , , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Sheila Musaji: Geller & Spencer Attempt to Turn Congressional Race into a Religious War | Spencer Watch()

  • khushboo

    Farha, that list will change once we get out of the muslim countries and the greedy billionaires get paid. That list is there to simply justify our so-called “war against terrorism”. If we’re talking about real terrorists, then MeK and Cheney/Rumsfeld would’ve been in the top 5.

  • JD

    Farha Khaled you can get of that list real fast if they need you to do something some place ohh say Iran no matter how many people you killed…

    A bipartisan band of former Washington officials and politicians has spent the last two years aggressively advocating on behalf of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK), an Iranian dissident group that has been formally designated for the last 15 years by the U.S. State Department as a “foreign Terrorist organization.” Most of those former officials have been paid large sums of money to speak at MeK events and meet with its leaders, thus developing far more extensive relations with this Terror group

    In 2003, when the Bush adminstration was advocating an attack on Iraq, one of the prime reasons it cited was “Saddam Hussein’s Support for International Terrorism.” It circulated a document purporting to prove that claim (h/t Hernlem), and one of the first specific accusations listed was this:

    Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

    So the group that was pointed to less than a decade ago as proof of Saddam’s Terrorist Evil is now glorified by both political parties in Washington and — now that it’s fighting for the U.S. and Israel rather than for Saddam — is no longer a Terror grou

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/05/salon-com-likely-victory-for-mek-shills/

  • JD

    wait wait wait….. wait

    So They are getting into a hissy fit over who in US Congress supports a country in ME and basing there votes on that..

    What if American muslims voted based on American congress runners support of Saudia Arabia any want to bet the volume of call of taqiyya dishonesty by muslims and all of that

    Maybe the Israel firsters should GO LIVE IN ISRAEL

  • Just Stopping By

    You can have whatever ideology you want here, though of course violent acts in support of an ideology are outlawed.

    Not quite. I’m wondering how Kahanism or the Al Aqsa Martyres Brigade, or Hamas would flourish as an idealogy in the USA with all of the State Dept. sanctioned in place.

    Foreign Terrorist Organizations

    http://merln.ndu.edu/archivepdf/terrorism/state/103392.pdf
    Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations
    1. Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
    2. Abu Sayyaf Group
    3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
    4. Al-Shabaab
    5. Ansar al-Islam
    6. Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
    7. Asbat al-Ansar
    8. Aum Shinrikyo
    9. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
    10. Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army (CPP/NPA)
    11. Continuity Irish Republican Army
    12. Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group)
    13. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
    14. Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami/Bangladesh (HUJI-B)
    15. Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
    16. Hizballah (Party of God)
    17. Islamic Jihad Group
    18. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
    19. Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed)
    20. Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI)
    21. al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
    22. Kahane Chai (Kach)
    23. Kongra-Gel (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers’ Party, PKK, KADEK)
    http://www.

    Legal Ramifications of Designation

    1. It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide “material support
    or resources” to a designated FTO. (The term “material support or resources” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as ” any property,
    tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training,
    expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons,
    lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or
    religious materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(2) provides that for these purposes “the term ‘training’ means instruction or teaching designed
    to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(3) further provides that for these purposes the term
    ‘expert advice or assistance’ means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.’’

    2. Representatives and members of a designated FTO, if they are aliens, are inadmissible to and, in certain circumstances, removable from
    the United States (see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182 (a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)-(V), 1227 (a)(1)(A)).

  • And if an American supports Palestinian independence for theological reasons, such as a theological belief that God wants all people to be free, logically you would call them a fifth columnist too, right?

    Yes indeed. The constitution of the US does not have a mandate to support a Palestinian state on theological grounds.

  • Skip

    Quite obviously, claiming Jewish voters to have “Loyalty to a foreign flag” is NOT anti-Semitic,

    but claiming Muslims are not loyal to US interests is clearly a thought-crime only bigots are capable of.

    Love that logic!

  • Just Stopping By

    @Farha Khaled says, “Kahanism is outlawed in the US, so yes they are fifth columns, because they oppose the two state solution.”

    Umm, actually Kahanism is not outlawed in the US. You can have whatever ideology you want here, though of course violent acts in support of an ideology are outlawed.

    And if you think that opposing the two state solution in Israel/Palestine makes one a fifth columnist in the US, your definition really does appear to include people who merely disagree with you politically.

    “They are fifth columns if they put the intersets of Israel above those of the USA for theological reasons.” And if an American supports Palestinian independence for theological reasons, such as a theological belief that God wants all people to be free, logically you would call them a fifth columnist too, right?

  • Just Stopping By,

    It’s not that I oppose Orthodox Jews living in territory designated for a Palestinian state. It’s that they settle illegally, and then say they are entitled to for religous reason. They should fulfill their religous needs within the framework of the law, ie. settle as citizens in a Palestinian state, the current situation is wrong and immoral.

    The support for the settlements comes primarily from the USA, because it has so many Christian Armeggeddon believers. This is the reason the Orthodox Nationalist Religous tend to vote Republican.

  • Just Stopping By

    I also don’t like the idea of saying that the Zionist right wing is a fifth column. I, for example, support a Palestinian state,

    If you support a two state solution, then you are not the fifth column I spoke about.

    There is a difference between Zionists and Zionist radicals. The former have goals which can be fulfilled within the framework of negotiations, peace talks and international law (either a one state or two states). The latter have goals which neither the UN, nor the USA nor Israel supp. The Zionist right wing here, means those Zionists who support that which no nation officially supports. Kahanism is outlawed in the US, so yes they are fifth columns, because they oppose the two state solution. I do not think the goals of radical Zionism including CUFI can ever be realised for as long as there is not an Evangelical theocracy in place.

    Perhaps i’m mistaken, but I would like to know how many of those Orthodox are nationalist religous. Just for the record, I consider the Armeggeddon supporters a fifth column too.

    They are fifth columns if they put the intersets of Israel above those of the USA for theological reasons. The Nationlist Religious and CUFI along with fringe Israeli groups do court Jewish votes in the US for theological reasons, and the US constitution does not state that supporting radical Zionism is one it’s founding goals. So they are fifth column.

  • Young & Free

    Oh just look at that big swastika tattoo he has, what an EVUL NAZI. Oh wait – Geller’s EDL friends *really do* have swastika tattoos, but they are freedom fighters right?

    Geller, why do you hang out with white supremacists who do the Nazi salute at their marches?

  • Just Stopping By

    @Farha Khaled:

    Thanks for your comment. I am very opposed to the settlements.

    But, I would never say, “Members of Religion X should vote against the candidate supported by Religion Y.” I object to what Spencer and Geller say in their pieces on this subject. However, if one wants to say that they are “attempt[ing] to turn a congressional race into a religious war,” I think that Mr. Assef beat them to it when he said, “If Republican Muslims in New Jersey emulate the Jewish voters, and assuming their numerical symmetry, they will at least cancel out the ‘converted’ Jewish votes.”

    I also don’t like the idea of saying that the Zionist right wing is a fifth column. I, for example, support a Palestinian state, and I would do so even if I thought that would have some negative impact on U.S. interests. In fact, I think it would reduce tensions in the region and actually give the U.S. more influence, but put that aside, and let’s assume that the existence of a Palestinian state would harm U.S. interests. Would people with my position be considered fifth columnists because we support a position that harms U.S. interests? Were people opposed to the Iraq war fifth columnists? I just think it’s dangerous, as well as wrong, to assert that people who disagree with one’s positions are traitors rather than, well, people who disagree with one’s positions.

  • Just Stopping By

    Orthodox Jews tend to support the settlements. No American should support this. Eventually, when they are dismantled, it will have been a waste of time, money and lives lost.

    The Charedis don’t support the settlements, they are also Orthodox, so if you’re objecting because of this, it’s valid and you’re right.

    But the Zionist right wing is a fifth column. Both the Christian (numerically greater) and the Jewish. They both tend to be Republican, the Christians tend to be the Evangelical fanatics, and the Jewish tend to be Nationalist Religous, Orthodox in faith, or secular/godless atheists like the neo cons Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol etc.

  • TimothyH

    Are Christian Arabs Israel’s Achilles’ heel?

    http://www.creators.com/opinion/ray-hanania/are-christian-arabs-israel-s-achilles-heel.html
    The story quickly moved from discrimination to the impact it might have on how Christians in America view Israel.

    Simon noted Israel relies heavily on tourism, and the majority of tourists are Christians.

    Simon put the question to an Israeli journalist: “Should Israelis be concerned about that?” Simon asked. “Do you think the Israeli government ever thinks of the fact that if Christians are not being treated well here, and America is an overwhelmingly Christian country, that this could have consequences?”

    The columnist responded, very diplomatically, that Christian Palestinians are caught in a battle between “political Judaism and political Islam,” in essence arguing that the issue isn’t Israeli persecution.

    But Simon, who has asked tough questions of Israeli and Arab policy in the past, should have put that question to Oren.

    Ironically, it is one of the reasons why I have been ostracized by Palestinian activists and especially by Islamic extremists. I’ve argued for many years that the battle for Palestinian independence won’t be won in the West Bank, but rather in the court of American public opinion.

    Palestinians need to put their Christian leaders at the forefront of the political battle for the hearts and minds of Americans. Instead, many Muslim Palestinians have pushed the issue down, arguing that we should never distinguish between Christians and Muslims in the battle between Israel and Palestine.

    In truth, that is exactly what Palestinians need to do if they hope to win the PR battle and undermine Israel’s near total domination of America’s foreign policy, which is solidly backed by American public opinion.

    If you can’t change American public opinion, you will never change American foreign policy. And until America steps aside from protecting Israel from criticism, as Simon’s CBS report actually accomplishes in a very subtle way, then the conflict will never end. There will never be peace in Israel. And Palestine will never exist as a state.

  • mindy1

    Ugh, more and more beginning to really hate politics DX

  • Just Stopping By

    This is quite a strange article. Ms. Musaji says, “It would seem that simply following the timeline of events clarifies this whole incident. A group of Jewish Rabbis raised the issue of a candidates support for Israel as a reason to vote for that candidate.” But, the article cited says quotes the letter as saying, “Our community has the unique opportunity to significantly impact this race. The choice is clear – support the candidate who best understands our needs and interests. Congressman Steve Rothman is the obvious choice in this Primary election.” So far, no mention of Israel.

    I was able to find a link to the letter here: http://www.aafusa.org/rothman9.aspx. Notably, the letter never mentions Israel but ends with, “On the back of this letter, please find a list of some of the actions and positions Steve has taken which, we think, deserve our endorsement and your vote.” The back of the letter is not reproduced in the article I found, but maybe someone can find it, or perhaps Ms. Musaji can provide a link if she has one. My guess is that Israel is mentioned, but it sounds like it would probably be part of a longer list.

    So, now to Mr. Assef’s response. If the response is of the type “if Orthodox Jews agree with actions and positions of a candidate, we should be against that candidate,” then I find the response very problematic.

    And Mr. Assef’s statements “As total and blind support for Israel becomes the only reason for choosing Rothman, voters who do not view the elections in this prism will need to take notice. Loyalty to a foreign flag is not loyalty to America’s” are problematic, unless you want to agree that voting for a candidate based on their support of Palestinian independence, for example, is a form of disloyalty to the United States.

    I would have been much appier if Mr. Assef said why he supported Cong. Pascrell, rather than, as far as I see now, say that if Jews support one candidate, Muslims should come out in support of the other. Maybe he has actual reasons to support Cong. Pascrell, but from the article above, the only reason seems to be “If Republican Muslims in New Jersey emulate the Jewish voters, and assuming their numerical symmetry, they will at least cancel out the ‘converted’ Jewish votes.” Forgive me if I find that problematic.

  • TimothyH

    American Muslims need to make an alliance with the Christian right, to combat the likes of Pamela Geller.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world
    Antisemitism in the Arab world has increased greatly in modern times, for many reasons: the breakdown of the Ottoman Empire and traditional Islamic society; European influence, brought about by Western imperialism and Christian Arabs;[1] Nazi propaganda;[2] and the rise of Arab nationalism. The rise of political Islam during the 1980s and afterwards provided a new mutation of Islamic anti-Semitism, which gave the hatred of Jews a religious component.[2]

    For most of the past fourteen hundred years, according to Bernard Lewis, Arabs have not been antisemitic as the word is used in the West. In his view this is because, for the most part, Arabs are not Christians brought up on stories of Jewish deicide. In Islam, such stories are rejected by the Qur’an as a blasphemous absurdity. Since Muslims do not consider themselves as the “true Israel”, they do not feel threatened by the survival of Jews. Because Islam did not retain the Old Testament, no clash of interpretations between the two faiths can therefore arise. There is, says Lewis, no Muslim theological dispute between their religious institutions and the Jews.[3]

    While there were antisemitic incidents in the early twentieth century, antisemitism has certainly been heightened by the Arab-Israeli conflict. After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Palestinian exodus, the creation of the state of Israel, Israeli victories during the wars of 1956 and 1967 served a severe shock to the Arabs.[4] The situation of the Middle Eastern Jews worsened and almost all fled or were expelled from their native countries. By the 1980s, according to Bernard Lewis, the volume of antisemitic literature published in the Arab world, and the authority of its sponsors, seemed to suggest that classical antisemitism had become an essential part of Arab intellectual life, considerably more than in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century France, and to a degree that has been compared to Nazi Germany.[5]

    In their 2008 report on contemporary Arab-Muslim antisemitism, the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center dates the beginning of this phenomenon to the spread of classic European Christian antisemitism into the Arab world starting in the late 19th century.

  • TimothyH

    I also think Christian groups like Christ at the Checkpoint, should be utilised by Muslim groups.

    Why aren’t Muslims exploiting world Christian support for Palestinians?

  • TimothyH

    I’ve noted that most of the prominent Arabs in the USA are Christian, not Muslim.

    Helen Thomas, James Zogby, Octavia Nasr are Christian. Another thing, they are more anti Israel, than American Muslims and some are downright anti sEmitic, unlike most American Muslims.

    The christian Arabs lead the way, in anti Israel sentiment.

    Which leads me to ask Is Aref Assef a Christian Arab? The organisation he heads, also had James Zogby as it’s head I believe.

    Has anyone noted that the hypocritical Pamela Geller and other Jewish Islamophobes, are quick to call an anti Israel Muslim, a Muslim Jew hater, but when it’s a Christian one, they don’t say Christian Jew hater.

    They do this because they suck up to the Christians, and because Israel exists because of American Christian support.

    Pamela Geller didn’t call Helen Thomas, a Christian Nazi, but she did call Aref Assef a Muslim Nazi, even though in the past she has wrongly accused people of being Muslim when they are not.

  • Awesome Atheist

    Many religions try to shut down the conversation when it’s something they don’t like. Jews frequently dismiss anything critical of Israeli policies as anti-Semitic. Muslims often will declare any criticism of Islam to be Islamophobic. Christians will say they they are persecuted whenever Christianity is criticized, etc.

    Religion is like a child- when it doesn’t get what it wants, it instead whines, complains, attacks, and throws tantrums.

  • Awesome Atheist

    This is a case of Islamic anti-semitism?

    Oh please, I am so sick of hearing the same shit. Criticising Israeli policies of terror and apartheid isn’t anti-Semitic.

  • Awesome Atheist

    I am proud to see a candispdate running who speaks the truth about Israel, it is a step forward for this country indeed.

    It is silly that Jeller and Spinster are trying to get involved in this, and I am not surprised, zionists typically label legitimate criticism of Israel as “antisemitic.”. Either antisemitic or “jew-hatred”.

  • @Sheila Musaji

    You wrote,
    ————————————————————————–
    The decent people of the 9th Congressional District of New Jersey don’t need such bigoted individuals involving themselves in this election and fueling the fires of mutual distrust and bigotry.
    ————————————————————————–

    I couldn’t agree more. Nothing Assef wrote sounds the least bit antisemitic or bigoted in anyway. Spencer and Geller are the bigots.

  • corey
Powered by Loon Watchers