The Foreign Policy Research Institute and Mason Crest Publishers  have come out with a 10 volume series of textbooks titled “World of Islam” which is littered with fearmongering, anti-Muslim sentiment, inaccuracy and bias.

Muslim Group Condemns Book Series

The Pennsylvania chapter of a Muslim-rights group accused a Philadelphia think tank and its Broomall publisher yesterday of “fearmongering,” inaccuracy, and bias in a 10-volume series of textbooks titled World of Islam.

The 64-page volumes, produced and edited by the Foreign Policy Research Institute and Mason Crest Publishers, are aimed at middle and high school students.

At a news conference at its Center City office, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-PA) cited passages it deemed inflammatory. Among them: “Muslims began immigrating to the United States in order to transform American society, sometimes through the use of terrorism.”

The group contended that such language obscured the reality that most people, Muslims included, come to America simply for better lives.

“When you finish reading these books you walk away with the impression that Muslims are inherently violent, that Islam is a second-rate religion, and that one should be wary of Muslims in any society,” said Moein Khawaja, civil rights director of CAIR-PA.

Alan Luxenberg, vice president of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, said that the allegations were “without basis” and that CAIR had “misconstrued the intended meaning of the books.” Founded in 1955, the nonprofit institute conducts research and education on international affairs.

No one from the publishing house was immediately available for comment, although the company has offered to send complimentary copies for review “to any journalist on request.”

Khawaja said he did not know which, if any, school districts had bought the series. But he said complaints from other CAIR chapters suggested the books were in public and academic libraries in more than 20 states.

“The Free Library of Philadelphia” has a set, he said, “and we thought it better to speak out now” before the series gets wider distribution.

Khawaja urged schools and libraries that have the books to replace them with another 10-part series, Introducing Islam, which is also published by Mason Crest. That series, he said, “does what a schoolbook is supposed to do: educate.”

Khawaja said he would donate a set of that series to the Free Library.

Library administrators were not immediately available for comment.

---

Contact staff writer Michael Matza at 215-854-2541 or mmatza@phillynews.com.

Newsweek had an article on some of the trendiest, bizarre, and most trafficked conspiracy theories of 2009. The Muslim spy intern conspiracy made it to #9 and it had ole’ Robert Spencer in a fit. He railed against it with all the ineptitude, innuendo and verbal diarrhea we are used to from his clownish ways. Calling it “journalistic irresponsibility” and “bias,” etc.

What has him in a uproar:

Guide to Conspiracy: Know your Conspiracy

9. The Council on American-Islamic Relations is trying to infiltrate Capitol Hill and spread jihad.
Author Dave Gaubatz alleges that the mainstream group is both connected to Islamist terrorists and international jihad and is working to infiltrate the American government by placing interns on Capitol Hill.
Proponents: Dave Gaubatz, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), Joseph Farah.
Kernel of Truth? CAIR has tried to place interns on Capitol Hill, but as it points out, that’s standard practice for advocacy groups of all types and allegiances. There’s no proof of sinister motives or an effort to encourage international jihad.

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

Obama, MoveOn working with CAIR

Joe Kaufman

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

Susan Starkey Responds to Anti-Semitism Allegations

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

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

In an email, Starkey told Juice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your spin has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever.

So there you have it.

Joe Kaufman

We haven’t written much on Joe Kaufman recently, but that doesn’t mean he has fallen off our radar. Kaufman is in the same league of Islamophobic kookieness as Pamela Geller, and his radical if comical beliefs expose him as a somewhat dangerous if bumbling joker.

Recently, Kaufman went haywire over the participation of CAIR in the Broward County “adopt-a-street” program, a program where a group takes the initiative to “adopt” a street and clear it of litter. Kaufman was incensed and accused the county of giving into terrorism.

Adam Horowitz, of Mondoweiss, has an excellent piece on the goofy antics that make up Joe Kaufman’s crusade against the “adopt-a-street” program.

If this street gets cleaned the terrorists win

The South Florida Sun Sentinel is reporting that right-wing Jewish extremist, and one time vice-chairman of the Republican Jewish Coalition of South Florida, Joe Kaufman is leading the charge against one of this country’s greatest security threats: the Adopt-A-Street program in Florida’s Broward County. Kaufman is incensed that the county had the short sightedness to allow the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to participate in its “adopt a street” program. And he’s not taking it lying down.

The Sun Sentinel explains:

A small group of demonstrators led by Americans Against Hate Chairman Joe Kaufman last Friday accused Broward County and the Town of Davie of supporting an organization with ties to Islamic terrorists.

A street sign in Davie sparked the anger of the demonstrators who protested in front of the Broward County Governmental Center in Fort Lauderdale on a rainy Friday afternoon.

The sign, at the southwest corner of College Avenue and Nova Drive, credits the Miami office of the Council on American Islamic Relations ( CAIR-FL) for its participation in a Broward County program to clear litter from an “adopted” street.

Kaufman said when he complained about the sign, a spokesman for the Town of Davie told him it would not be removed because CAIR had a Constitutional right to free speech.

“Freedom of speech is a poor excuse,” Kaufman said to the demonstrators. “This is not about free speech. It’s about terrorism.”(Emphasis added)

Let us interject here for a moment, as there is something very revealing in the comments from Kaufman. When he was told that this is a matter of free speech, and that CAIR (which has never been convicted of or charged with terrorism) has the right to participate in this program, Kaufman replied by saying that “this is not about free speech.” All of a sudden free speech no longer matters when “Mooslims” are involved. Kaufman, seems to believe free speech is only valuable when criticizing or defaming/hating Islam and Muslims but when it is extended to everyone it is “a poor excuse.”

This also reveals the wider hypocrisy in the Islamophobic movement, we hear the constant refrain from Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Wafa Sultan, etc. that Mooslims are trying to muzzle their voices, that Mooslims are “against free speech,” but as we have shown time and again when they are challenged and exposed they cry about being “libeled,” “intimidated,” “shocked” even calling for retractions and “apologies.” It seems to be a case of what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander, and Kaufman’s Freudian slip illustrates this very well.

Adam Horowitz continues,

The Sun Sentinel says that Muhammad Malik, the civil rights director of CAIR’s South Florida branch, responded by explaining, “the organization wanted to bring out people to pick up litter from the street, like any other group.”

If there was ever any doubt that segments of the Jewish community have totally lost touch with reality just check out this quote from Kaufman on the press release for the protest explaining why it was being held on Hanukkah:

“On Hanukkah, millions of people around the world celebrate the triumph of the Jewish people over those who wished to destroy them. We want Broward County to recognize the fact that those involved with Hamas, like the Greeks 2000 years before them, have a similar goal to destroy the Jews. And we want Broward County to know that it allowed a sign to be ‘adopted’ by a group connected to Hamas.”

And so Joe, you’re saying the Greeks also tried to destroy the Jews by cleaning their streets? That is almost as shocking as some of Americans Against Hate’s merchandise (and be sure to not miss this).

Is Kaufman’s war against CAIR picking up litter from the streets a surprise? No, it is a hilarious inside into the extremist character of Kaufman, moulded by the thoughts of Meir Kahane. Everything is Jihad and terror, cleaning up the streets is equal to destroying America. It would have been sad if it wasn’t so funny.

Who is he?:

Joe Kaufman, has been on the Anti-Muslim scene for quite a while now and is dubbed by the far Right-Wing FrontPageMag as, you guessed it…another one of their ”Investigative Journalists.”  That he has been influenced by Meir Kahane and the Kahanist ideology is well documented, as is his love and angst for Kahane.

In the past he has been accused of contributing to the terrorist organization founded by Kahane known as JDL (Jewish Defense League) while others accuse Kaufman of at the very least holding views that parallel JDL positions.

Kaufman’s unsavory associations and views are quite real and they are only dangerous to America if you’re stupid enough to swallow his conspiracy theories but other than that he is simply a half-baked paranoid conspiracy theorist, some what along the lines of the “9/11 Truthers.”

In every nook and cranny there is a “Mooslim”…hiding and ready to get ya…so beware and be afraid. Be veryyyy afraid goes his story.

In this special LoonWatch series we will detail the exploits and punchlines that Krazy Kaufman throws out there and attempts to pass on as serious journalism, commentary and investigation.

Under Fire Islamophobe Turns on the Nasty

[Catch up on PART I and PART II of this series]

OK, grab your popcorn and grab a seat. The Robert Spencer freak circus continues to unravel with comical twists and turns.

Spencer first attempted to lay low on the latest revelation that LoonWatch broke out on the blogosphere concerning two hateful URLs, “f**kislam.com” and “f**kallah.com” redirecting to his trashy website, JihadWatch.org.

The redirection magically disappeared hours after LoonWatch busted JihadWatch without a peep from Spencer.

It seems now after LoonWatch turned on the pressure with a follow up piece, Spencer has finally broken his silence with an exegesis in logic that is bound to put the vulgar associations he hopes to absolve himself from beyond any reasonable doubt.

Are you ready?

Drum Roll!

“F**k CAIR.”

That’s right, you read correctly.

Now, you tell me, why would anyone in their right mind think of associating this charming man with vulgarities like “f**kislam.com and “f**kallah.com”?

“I have never engaged in such tactics and do not approve of them,” says Spencer with a straight face in the SAME post whose headline is “F**k CAIR.”

Let us take a moment of silence as we bask in the irony.

…

Ok, moving on.

In this latest JihadWatch rant, Spencer pops a cap whining about libel while simultaneously flinging baseless accusations and obscenities at his critics.

Ok sorry, let us take another moment of silence as we bask in this irony.

…

Ok.

Spencer seems to have buckled under pressure and has come out of character. Gone is the cool-calm-objective-scholar act, and out pops the bottled anger and potty-mouthed vengefulness bubbling beneath the phony surface. He goes on to showcase the slimy tactics he employs in his treatment of all things Muslims. Exhibit A: lying…

(CAIR) has claimed in its “American Muslim News Briefs” email that I own the domains f***allah.com and f***islam.com and have redirected them to Jihad Watch.

That’s a flat out lie,  one of many lies Spencer tries to slip to his unsuspecting readers who are accustomed to drinking from the cusp of his hands.

In fact, CAIR claimed no such thing. CAIR did not even opine on the issue any which way. CAIR simply carried a story from LoonWatch - without edit or commentary - as it does from hundreds of other websites across the World Wide Web based on what it perceives to be relevance to its mostly Muslim leadership.

Now I do not agree with everything CAIR says, but I have respect for CAIR.

They do a lot of great work to fight hatred and Islamophobia, but let’s not give them undue credit on this one, Mr. Spencer.

It was LoonWatch – proudly so - who broke the story in which it shared the undisputed fact that indeed those sites do redirect to Spencer’s JihadWatch.org and then proceeded to raise the obvious questions that any sane person remotely familiar with Spencer’s work would ask as a direct result of this revelation.

LoonWatch questioned the possibilities including, but not limited to, the possibility that Spencer is knowingly involved in the scheme. But it also raised the possibility that a third party (term used was “vandal”) redirected the URL’s. Of those possibilities, I gave my opinion which I am entitled to do. I then called on Spencer to speak out and lay all doubts to rest and - if as far removed from the scheme as he is likely to claim - then to do the honorable thing, to disavow and apologize for those redirections.

(Notice despite his rant, that is something he has yet to do.)

How that translates to libel, let alone from CAIR, is a question that can only be answered in the deranged mind of trigger-happy Robert Spencer.

The notion that he would claim to have no connection to the URL’s and moreover play the victim is no surprise to me.

What remains suspicious is his continued refusal to do the honorable thing most civilized folk in his situation would do, express shock and dismay at the linkage, and distance himself from the hate message of the URLs.

Mr. Spencer, O’ Objective scholar of Islam, Why the reluctance to come out and condemn those URL’s as vile, vulgar, and hateful to Islam and Muslims?

Instead, Spencer misdirects his rage at the whistleblowers and anyone else who dared to question the linkage. As if, given Spencer’s long history of rabid hatemongering against Islam and Muslims, questioning his involvement in such a scheme is a far-fetched proposition.

What is amusing about the whole episode is Spencer’s feigned outrage that a Muslim organization - whose stated mission mind you is to battle Islamophobia - would carry an article scrutinizing the shady affairs of one of America’s leading Islamophobes.

Shocking!

Why, Muslim organizations fighting Islamophobia should be carrying stories about Irish Leprechauns, Amish quilts, and Danish Cookies. But Islamophobia? Why would they think to do that?

In Spencer’s objective scholarly mind, such action only proves that CAIR is “a desperate, dishonest, and pathetic Hamas-linked unindicted conspirator Islamic supremacist thug.”

Can you see it? Come on now, it’s pretty obvious guys, can’t you connect the dots like a spinster can?

No? Well then pray for the drones out there who are duped into believing that this guy is an unbiased source of information on Islam and Muslims.

As for LoonWatch, disclosing the fact that Spencer is anything but an objective scholar of Islam earns us the title “leftist pro-jihad hate” website.

Ok, what’s wrong with leftist, does Spencer submit to a fascist agenda that prefers that all Americans be on one side of the political spectrum – say, the right?

And pro-Jihad? Does our great scholar of Islam engage in schoolboy fumbling of the definition of Jihad, a most basic Islamic concept? Does he not understand that for Muslims, Jihad is not defined the way he intends it as a slur? That it is defined as a struggle towards greater good, not violence and extremism as both the crazy loons at Al Qaeda and the crazy loons at JihadWatch define it?

As for hate, that is a term usually applied in a mass context, in other words to describe sentiment towards a class of people not an individual, i.e. the KKK’s hate against Blacks, the Nazi hate against Jews, the JihadWatch hate against Muslims, etc. For Spencer to call us a hate site for criticizing his individual work is absurd and self-absorbed. We do not hate you Spencer, we think you are funny.

Meanwhile, in another deep dark corner of the Islamophobic blogosphere, certified loon Pamela Geller, one of Spencer’s last remaining friends (visible in the above photo), has come to his rescue. In a wonderful display of reactionary shrill, she went ahead and registered fuckcair.com and redirected it to her gem of a website, Atlas shrugs. Ah, we love it when the loons get caught up in their own absurdity!

A final word:

The ultimate irony in this whole crazy episode is the realization that those who often propose racist and absurd generalizations about Muslims under the pretense of Freedom of Speech (read: Robert Spencer, Michael Savage, etc) are quick to whine and cry about others excercizing their own right to Freedom of Speech to expose and criticize their fraudulence. They are then quick to shriek “bloody libel” and threaten their critics.

As such, their trumping up of themselves as some kind of “defenders of freedom” is as hollow and absurd as the intellectually-bankrupt commentary they spew forth for a living - and a handsomely-paid one at that.

Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., and Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz

TPM, which has been all over the story about the GOP pushing an anti-Muslim witch hunt based on a book by loons, David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry has reported that the lawmakers have still not contacted the Sergeant of Arms for an investigation into this “threat to our national security.” They also haven’t given a reason as to the delay.

GOP Lawmakers “Dawdle”

Four Republican lawmakers have not submitted a request to the House sergeant at arms to investigate a threat that one of the four described as a terrorist-linked group possibly “running influence operations or planting spies in key national security-related offices.”

A spokesperson for the sergeant at arms told TPMmuckraker this morning that the office was aware of the charge by GOP members at a press conference Wednesday that the Council on American-Islamic Relations planted Muslim intern spies on the Hill for purposes of subversion. But, says spokesperson Kerri Hanley, the office hasn’t received a request for an investigation, and it wouldn’t launch any probe until such a request is made.

“We don’t have any information to form any kind of opinion to decide whether an investigation is warranted,” Hanley says.

The charges made by Reps. Paul Broun (R-GA), John Shadegg (R-AZ), Sue Myrick (R-NC), and Trent Franks (R-AZ), are based on the new book Muslim Mafia, which is co-authored by a man who has labeled President Obama “Muslim.”

They demanded that the sergeant at arms investigate the possibility of a security breach by Muslim intern spies.

As Franks put it at the press conference five days ago:

“We live in a post-9/11 world where the coincidence of nuclear proliferation and Islamic terrorism pose a very dangerous combination and real threat to America’s national security. … . I take the charges levied against CAIR and laid out in this book very seriously because they affect our national security.”

Myrick’s office told TPMmuckraker Friday it would be submitting requests for investigations in the next few days, but did not explain the delay.

The offices of three of the four Republicans did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the national security risk of waiting to launch an investigation.

Sara Mueller, deputy press secretary for Shadegg, told us: “Unfortunately, the congressman can’t comment on that at this time. “

Meanwhile, the (supposed) cabal of Muslim intern spies can continue to ply their trade in still more sinister (but as yet undefined) ways.

Sue Myrick wrote the foreward for Muslim Mafia

Dave Gaubatz, who we reported on previously while covering a story on Tawfiq Hamid has surfaced again. This time teaming up with Paul Sperry (another Islamophobe) to write a book, Muslim Mafia which claims to uncover the secret, nefarious plot by CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) to supposedly “Islamize America.” This conspiracy theory is related to the kooky Eurabia theory which we debunked, and is another clear manifestation of anti-Muslim Islamophobia.

This time a few far right-wing GOP lawmakers (Sue Myrick, John Shadegg, Paul Broun, and Trent Franks) have used the book to call for a McCarthyist inquisition into Muslims who worked as interns in the Capitol to find out  if they were “planted” by CAIR. They rely on a CAIR memo obtained by Gaubatz’s son who claimed to convert to Islam and then interned with CAIR. The memo doesn’t say anything extraordinary but rather lays out a pretty straightforward PR and advocacy agenda. The key portion that is ringing the Islamophobia bell is, “we will develop national initiatives such as a lobby day and placing Muslim interns in Congressional offices.” So what’s wrong with that you may ask, isn’t that what every advocacy group does in Washingtion DC? Well, the message from the GOP lawmakers seems to be it’s okay as long as you’re not Muslim.

This hysterical McCarthyist drama is being fed to these lawmakers by Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry. These two make Orly Taitz of the Birther movement look like a paragon of rationality and senility. Gaubatz claims to have uncovered WMD’s in Iraq, calls Obama our “Muslim leader,” a “crack head,” he was also a member of SANE which stands for Society of Americans for National Existence and is in fact a supremacist organization which has stated amongst other things that “blacks are predisposed to violence,” and that “adherence to Islam as a Muslim is prima facie evidence of an act in support of the overthrow of the US.”

Some lawmakers have already condemned this most recent disgusting, hysterical and kooky initiative from the GOP. John Conyers, Loretta Sanchez and Andre Carson have all condemned this Islamophobic attack on American Muslims. Hopefully many more, including the leaders of both parties will speak out.

This video from Rachel Maddow’s show breaks the issues down pretty clearly:

Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com gives a very good analysis of exactly who and what is behind this “despicable” political event.

This might actually be the most despicable domestic political event of the year:

A group of House Republicans is calling for an investigation into whether a leading American Muslim advocacy group tried to “spy” on congressional offices by placing interns on key security committees.

Rep. Sue Myrick, North Carolina Republican, cited an internal January 2007 memo in which the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) discussed placing Muslim interns on Capitol Hill to “focus on influencing congressmen responsible for policy that directly impacts the American Muslim community.”

CAIR said it had a particular interest in influencing the judiciary, intelligence and homeland security committees. . . . Mrs. Myrick and Republican Reps. John Shadegg of Arizona, Paul Broun of Georgia and Trent Franks of Arizona called Wednesday for an investigation by the House sergeant-at-arms into whether CAIR was successful in planting congressional interns.

“If an organization that is connected to or supports terrorists is running influence operations or planting spies in key national security-related congressional offices, I think this needs to be made known,” Mr. Broun said.

CAIR is a non-profit organization of American citizens who are Muslim and their “mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.”  They stand accused of plotting to influence members of Congress and trying to help interns obtain positions in Congress in order to advance their political agenda.  That’s consistent with what virtually every political advocacy group in the nation does; it’s normally called activism and democracy.  But because, in this case, it’s a group of Muslims who are doing this, these House Republicans are depicting it as some sort of nefarious espionage plot against the U.S. that demands a criminal investigation.  The Fox News headline screams:

All that from an “internal memo” they uncovered which discusses how CAIR can help Muslim-Americans obtain internship positions with Congressional committees (click to enlarge):

“Muslim interns in Congressional offices” – frightening!  Look at this repulsive innuendo, from Rep. Franks:

While the Republicans said they did not know of specific legislation that CAIR had affected, Franks, a Judiciary Committee member, said he wouldn’t be surprised if it was trying to amend the Patriot Act.

“One of the target policies that they might be concerned about is the Patriot Act itself — those things that give us the greatest tools to be able to surveil those conversations outside of this country . . .  and I think organizations like CAIR would like to diminish that.”

Patriot Act reforms have long been advocated by what The New York Times called “an unlikely coalition of liberal civil-rights advocates, conservative libertarians, gun-rights supporters and medical privacy advocates.”  Several Senators — including the Democrats’ second-highest ranking member, Dick Durbin — just voted (unsuccessfully) to impose new limits on that law.  But when “America’s largest Islamic civil liberties group” takes the same position, these crazed, blatantly bigoted House Republicans spit out McCarthyite smears trying to imply that they’re working from within to help Terrorists attack America.  It’s nothing less than an attempt to criminalize organized political activity by and on behalf of American Muslims.

Just to underscore how extremist the House GOP caucus is, this hysteria is all based on a new book entitled ”Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”  That’s the source which these House members are using.  In fact, one of the GOP House members, Rep. Sue Myrick of North Carolina, wrote the foreword to the book.  One of the two authors of that book, Dave Gaubatz, maintains this website, where he’s hocking the book through Paypal.  Here’s his mission statement at the top of the page:

The donations will assist in exposing Islamic terrorist operations in America. The goal of the organizations: An Islamic Ummah (Nation) Worldwide, Under Islamic Sharia Law. These goals are widely distributed across America, yet ignored by most of our politicians and the Department of Homeland Security.

The entire site is filled with the most extreme and repugnant anti-Muslim paranoia imaginable, claiming that “CAIR represents the ideology of terrorist groups”; warning that “CAIR places ‘insiders’ into Congressional offices in order to push the CAIR and Islamic terrorist agendas“; displaying a photograph of Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim-American elected to Congress, with this caption:  ”One of your leading elected officials (supporter of CAIR) with researcher Chris Gaubatz.  How much information do we have on Carson and Congressman Keith Ellison?; and warning that “Young Muslim children are being taught across America to engage in violence against non Muslims and Muslims who do not uphold Sharia law.”  It warns:

Unless we change the concerns I mentioned, our country will soon evolve into a Socialist country, Sharia law will continue to ‘creep’ into our society, Islamic based terrorist supporting organizations will continue the implementation of achieving the final objective of an Islamic Ummah in America and worldwide.

The website is filled with illiterate and unhinged rants like this:

Mr. Obama was a self admitted cocaine user, alcohol, and chose friends (Reverend Wright) who hated America and were terrorists (Bill Ayers). Note: More could be named. Based on this and this alone, this is not the role model we want our children to follow, nor to watch on TV at school. But why do leading media from the right and left never speak of Obama’s drug days? Because many of them have had their own drug days. . . .

It is time leaders in our country begin speaking out and simply telling the American people the basic truth why Obama and his friends are not repeted [sic] and American parents do not consider him to be a role model for our children. His primary method of resolving national and internatonal [sic] disputes he as generated) is to invite offended parties to the White House to conume [sic] alcoholic beverages. Again, not the method most parents would use to resolve serious situations and not what we want our children to view as an appropriate method. Dave G.

He previously called Obama a “crack head” and wrote that ”a vote for Hussein Obama is a vote for Sharia Law.”

Gaubatz — a civilian agent who worked for The U.S. Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations — was also the source for the “bombshell story” from supreme Muslim-hater Melanie Phillips, who wrote a 2007 piece for the British Spectator with this screaming headline, immediately promoted by leading right-wing blogs:  ”I found Saddam’s WMD Bunker!”  It details how Gaubatz personally found bunkers where Saddam’s WMDs were kept in Iraq, but “the [Bush] administration failed to act on his information, ‘lost’ his classified reports and is now doing everything it can to prevent disclosure of the terrible fact that, through its own incompetence, it allowed Saddam’s WMD to end up in the hands of the very terrorist states against whom it is so controversially at war.”  As a result, Saddam’s WMD are now in the hands of Syria, and the world has been fooled into believing that he had none.

In 2006, Gaubatz created a project called “Mapping Sharia in America”, the purpose of which was to create a comprehensive map of every mosque and Islamic school in the U.S. This is what he wrote:

It is our task to conduct an extensive mapping of all the Islamic day schools, mosques, and other identifiable organizations in the US and to determine which ones teach or preach Islamic law, Sharib.

This investigation will also map the leadership of these Muslim organizations and their other affiliations. We will also attempt to uncover any related businesses used or run by the organizations as fronts for money laundering and other illicit activities.

Finally, we will examine and map any potential targets situated near these organizations, such as city, county, and federal government buildings, schools and universities, US military installations, major utility or infrastructure sites (i.e., nuclear installations, pipelines, water supply, etc.), and transportation hubs.

Back in 2007, the libertarian Jim Henley detailed more facts demonstrating that Gaubatz is a “paranoid, racist loon.”  Just read some of that.  Or this.

This is the ranting, insane hatemonger who House Republicans are now using as their expert source to demand an investigation into CAIR’s villainous plot to place interns on Congressional committees.  It would be darkly humorous if it weren’t so ugly and dangerous.  These House members highlight CAIR’s status as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Muslim charity case without noting that one of the most powerful groups in Congress has actually been directly involved in an espionage case against the U.S., while numerous other corporations which receive substantial largesse from Congress have been convicted of all sorts of serious wrongdoing.

This is the precise rank fear-mongering and compulsive need for an Internal Enemy that has driven American policy and political culture for the entire decade.  Brave Congressional Democrats love to spend their time formally condemning people.  If anything merits formal condemnation, it’s this foul Republican witch hunt.

UPDATE:  As sphodros notes in comments, here’s a chart reflecting the religious affiliation of members of the current Congress:

89.3 percent of the members of Congress are Christian, 8.4% are Jewish, and a grand total of 2 members (.4%) are Muslim.  Their representation on the chart (the green section) is so small they’re practically invisible.  Muslims comprise .6% of the American population.  Yet these people are running around screaming about the imminent “Islamization of America” and imposition of Sharia law and calling for criminal investigations because a few interns on Congressional Committees – American citizens — might be Muslim and are therefore “spies.”  These are members of the U.S. House of Representatives doing that.   And they’re not alone:

In another conversation, [Joe Lieberman] told me that he was reading “America Alone,” a book by the conservative commentator Mark Steyn, which argues that Europe is succumbing, demographically and culturally, to an onslaught by Islam, leaving America friendless in its confrontation with Islamic extremism [GG: that book also flirts with explicit advocacy of anti-Muslim genocide].

“The thing I quote most from it is the power of demographics, in Europe particularly,” Lieberman said. “That’s what struck me the most. But the other part is a kind of confirmation of what I know and what I’ve read elsewhere, which is that Islamist extremism has an ideology, and it’s expansionist, it’s an aggressive ideology. And the title I took to mean that we Americans will have ultimate responsibility for stopping this expansionism.”

They’re breeding like rabbits, want to take over everything (through the power of interns on Congressional Committees), and we must stop them.  It’s the solemn challenge of our generation.

Further reading:

Richard Silverstein: Republicans Gone Wild Muslim Spies on Capitol Hill

Raw Story: Muslim Spies

Media Matters Coverage

Andrew Bostom and "Islamic Scholar" Robert Spencer

The Right-Wing anti-Muslim loonocracy and its minions in the blogosphere have secured a new cause to rally around, ironically enough it once again involves a Muslim minor, and in this regard, the anti-Muslim blogosphere really doesn’t have a good track record.  As recent history has proved, the last time the anti-Muslim blogosphere got this riled up about Muslim minors they turned up with egg on their faces.

After viewing a picture online of a wedding in Gaza, with grooms holding the hands of their young female cousins and nieces, the Islamophobia hit epic proportions with accusations of pedophilia being flung about wily-nily without nary a fact check. Tim Marshall, who reported on the wedding wrote about the Islamophobic response to the wedding,

Our report on this put it into context saying that it took place just a mile from the Israeli border and was a message from Hamas about its strength confidence and future fighters. Oh and that the brides were elsewhere. Pretty straightforward.

It never struck me for a moment that the little girls might later be described in the bloggersphere as the brides! How naive I am.

Dozens, and I mean dozens, of websites took the video of the event and wrote lurid stories about Hamas mass paedophilia with headlines about ‘450 child brides’, and endless copy about how disgusting this was, how it showed how depraved Islam is, et al, ad infinitum. Site after site jumped on the story, linking from one totally wrong load of rubbish to the next.

Robert Spencer was amongst the bloggers that falsely reported the incident as an instance of pedophilia.

The Fatimah Rifqa Bary Case

This time the case involves 17 year old Fatimah Rifqa Bary the daughter of Sri Lankan immigrants who came to America in 2000 seeking treatment for her vision problems. And before you could say “expediency,” the typical hordes of vultures started cycling, not so much out of interest for the girl’s welfare or the facts of the story, but as what they saw as a golden opportunity to reaffirm their caricature of Islam and Muslims as a dangerous cancer lurking within an otherwise good and pure Western civilization.

Fatimah, a cheerleader at New Albany High School ran away from her Columbus, Ohio home and ended up at the home of a pastor in Florida named Blake Lorenz. The details on how she ended up in Florida are still murky but what is clear is that she is leveling some very serious allegations against her family, including that she will be killed if she is returned to Ohio. The Columbus Dispatch reports in a story titled Girl Brainwashed, Parents say:

With Lorenz holding his arm tightly around her, Rifqa told WFTV-TV in Florida on Monday that she would be killed if she came home.

“They love God more than me; they have to do this,” she said. “I’m fighting for my life. You guys don’t understand.”

The family disputes these allegations and believes their daughter has been brainwashed. They state quite categorically that she is free to practice whatever faith she wants,

“We love her, we want her back, she is free to practice her religion, whatever she believes in, that’s OK,” her father, Mohamed Bary, said yesterday.

“What these people are trying to do is not right — I don’t think any religion will teach to separate the kids from their parents,” he said.

The family is not the only ones questioning the young girls allegations, Sgt. Jerry Cupp, the Chief of the Columbus Police Missing-Persons Bureau has said that Mohamed Bary (the father) “comes across to me as a loving, caring, worried father about the whereabouts and the health of his daughter.”

Robert Spencer, however, without knowing anything about the family — or the complete facts of the case — believes there is a slow motion honor killing in the making.  Starting from the pre-set conclusion that he derives from his personal study of Islam, he states that Islam requires the death penalty for apostates, and that it is a dead letter only “if no one cares or is able to enforce it in a particular case.” He writes this in response to Muslim scholar M. Cherif Bassiouni, a distinguished Law professor at DePaul University and President of the International Human Rights Law Institute, who wrote in 2006 that “a Muslim’s conversion to Christianity is not a crime punishable by death under Islamic law.”

Professor Bassiouni wrote this in 2006 when a man in Afghanistan was under the penalty of death for converting to Christianity. He wrote it as part of a document that was submitted to the court in Kabul. It has also been professor Bassiouni’s opinion as early as 1983. Professor Bassiouni responded to Spencer stating,

My position on apostasy has been expressed as early as 1983, namely that at the time of the Prophet it was not considered as only changing one’s mind but that it was the equivalent of joining the enemy and thus constituting high treason. In fact, at one time the Prophet had an agreement with the people in Makkah to return to Makkah all those who came from there, who wished to return after they had converted to Islam. I and a number of other distinguished Muslim scholars have long criticized the views of the four traditional Sunni schools…It is amazing to me how apparently little good faith and intellectual honesty you are displaying in your attack upon Islam and Muslims.

Professor Bassiouni’s position is pretty straight forward, he disagrees with those Muslims and non-Muslims who believe Islam legislates death for apostates and that his and many other distinguished Muslim scholars’ opinion is that it doesn’t. This is not so hard to grasp as LoonWatch contributor Barbel notes directly addressing Spencer,

In an obvious attempt to categorically associate this situation with all Muslims you wrote:

If she is sent back to her family, she could be killed, in accord with the death penalty that is prescribed by all Muslim sects and schools for those who leave Islam.

Surely, as a “scholar” you must be aware of this verse from the Muslim holy book, the Quran:

Those who believe, then reject Faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject Faith, and go on increasing in Unbelief,- God will not forgive them nor guide them on the Way.

How would it be possible to reject faith twice or go on increasing in unbelief if one was suppose to have been killed after the first rejection?  Furthermore, what purpose would withholding guidance have if the person had a death sentence anyway?

Robert, regardless of what you might want us to believe, Islamic scholars are NOT in consensus nor have they ever been in consensus over the apostasy issue.  Historically, the sentence of death was only applied to people who converted from the religion AND committed espionage. Consider what the 10th century scholar Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi had to say:

The prescribed penalties are generally not suspended because of repentance, especially when they are reported and become known to the head of state.  The punishment of highway robbery, for instance, is not suspended because of repentance; it is suspended only by the return of property to the owner prior to arrest. … Renunciation of the faith and conversion to disbelief is admittedly the greatest of offenses, yet it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the day of judgment. Punishments that are enforced in this life are those which protect the people’s interests, such as just retaliation, which is designed to protect life.

More recently, the contemporary Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan (a man you have repeatedly tried to defame) had this to say:

I have been criticized about this in many countries.  My view is the same as that of Sufyan Al-Thawri, an 8th-century scholar of Islam, who argued that the Koran does not prescribe death for someone because he or she is changing religion. Neither did the Prophet himself ever perform such an act. Many around the Prophet changed religions. But he never did anything against them.  There was an early Muslim, Ubaydallah ibn Jahsh, who went with the first emigrants from Mecca to Abyssinia.  He converted to Christianity and stayed, but remained close to Muslims.  He divorced his wife, but he was not killed.

I know this is probably still not enough for you, so here are over a hundred more Islamic scholars who are against the death penalty for apostasy.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that this girl (or many others who are in similar situations) isn’t at serious risk.  She very may well be.  All it means is that the straw man version of Islam that you have created only serves to ignite more hatred and promote your own personal ideological agenda.

This highlights the absurdity that is Robert Spencer, an absurdity that projects an ominous pre-set conclusion on any heated situation that arises dealing with Muslims and castigates “all Islam” in the process without acknowledging the polyvalent interpretations that exist or the context.

Robert Spencer’s Hypocrisy on Religious Freedom

What further makes the Fatimah Rifqah Bary case one which exposes Spencer and his cronies is the hypocrisy of it all. This is being painted as a freedom of religion case, specifically the freedom to change one’s religion, but it seems in this department Spencer sounds like the pot calling the kettle black since he supports those who would restrict the freedom of religion of Muslims.

As we have written on extensively before, one of the close comrades of Spencer is neo-fascist European politician Geert Wilders. Spencer is on the record stating his admiration for Wilders who he sees as the only European politician standing up for Western Civilization.

"Under his wing": Geert Wilders & Robert Spencer

Wilders is by all accounts an odious individual who calls for the out right denial of religious freedom to Muslims. He has called for the banning of the Quran which he compares to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, he has also stated that, “Freedom of Religion should not apply to Islam.” He is also working to end Muslim immigration and strip Muslims in Dutch society of their citizenship.

This is Spencers friend. Spencer has also participated in forums with Wilders, conferences, writes articles about him, has interviewed him and cites him often. In one article Spencer wrote in response to CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper he says,

I didn’t actually have anything to do with that conference in Florida, but Hoop could just say straight out that I support Wilders. And so should anyone who holds dear the Western values that are threatened by Islamic supremacists.

So is the Fatimah Rifqah Bary case another instance of Robert Spencer jumping the gun or is her life legitimately under threat? The courts will resolve that question, but Spencer has shot his credibility in this department with a track record of obfuscation, innuendo and misrepresentation and is wholly unreliable.

Will Spencer also back track on his position that “all Muslim sects and schools of thought” legislates the death penalty for apostates and concede that there is a valid counter opinion such as the one articulated by Professor Bassiouni? Finally, will Spencer quit the charade that he is a democrat that cares for Freedom of Religion when in fact his position is to support those who would deny religious freedom?

It seems that per his practice, Spencer seized on this case to further his well-oiled agenda that Islam is evil and Muslims are backward. As the story of Fatimah Rifqah Bary plays out we will see more clearly that the anti-Muslims are not motivated by her welfare but rather to confirm their warped hatred of Islam and Muslims.

Islamophobes Inc., Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders

Recently the American Library Association & the Ethnic & Multicultural Information Exchange Roundtable was to hold a discussion around the topic of Perspectives on Islam: Beyond the Stereotyping. For all intents and purposes the forthcoming discussion seemed very promising. It would confront and discuss the important issue of stereotypical portrayals of Islam and all that is associated with it such as myths and smears.

The program ran into trouble when without the knowledge of the other panelists, and seemingly without any sort of vetting, the ALA invited a well known anti-Islam and anti-Muslim blogger and writer — Robert Spencer. To say the least this made more than a few people scratch their heads. How could a reputable organization invite a well known Islamophobe who traffics in perpetuating stereotypes to speak at an event that is supposed to go beyond stereotypes?

To understand just how strange this was just imagine if the ALA had invited David Duke as a speaker on matters of race, say on a panel discussing the topic Perspectives on Race: Beyond Stereotyping. Does anyone believe he would be invited?

This was the very reason that a group of librarians, scholars and individuals sent a letter to the ALA protesting the inclusion of Robert Spencer on the panel. In it they detail their reasons and their apprehension at the severe lapse of judgment and error on the part of the ALA,

Even the most cursory overview of Mr. Spencer’s oeuvre makes it clear that in fact he has no place on a panel whose aim is to dispel stereotypes about Islam. Indeed, we, as librarians, scholars, and individuals are deeply concerned by ALA & EMIERT’s choice of Mr. Spencer for such a panel: Mr. Spencer espouses a view of Islam as a system of belief which is essentially violent, undemocratic, totalitarian, exclusive and at war with all non-Muslims. Mr. Spencer in fact goes as far as to equate Islam with fascism. According to him,

The misbegotten term “Islamo-fascism” is wholly redundant: Islam itself is a kind of fascism that achieves its full and proper form only when it assumes the powers of the state.” (www.jihadwatch.com/islam101)

Hence a question arises as to the justification for inviting a speaker who cannot see anything positive about Islamic beliefs, cultures, societies, histories, etc. to talk to an audience in order to dispel negative views of Islam. We are indeed saddened and puzzled by ALA’s choice for their panel, especially in that this appears to be a rare opportunity to educate people about Islam against the backdrop of an overwhelming atmosphere of ignorance, and negative stereotyping.

The open letter to the ALA resulted in the other three panelists withdrawing their participation in protest against the inclusion of Robert Spencer who they only learned was going to be a part of the panel a few days ago. This resulted eventually in the ALA canceling the event.

This cancellation served as a continuing repudiation of Spencer by scholars and his growing inability to cross over into the mainstream. Increasingly, Spencer’s voice is limited to the echo chamber that is the cottage industry of Islam-bashing which contains such “luminaries” as Debbie Schlussel, Brigitte Gabriel, and Andrew Bostom (!).

In response to being outed by the academics and librarians Spencer wrote a usual shrill diatribe in which he attacked his former friend Charles Johnson, CAIR and accused the ALA of “caving-in” to pressure. Yet by responding it seems Spencer has just dug himself further in a hole that leaves him wide open to further accusations, of at the very least, brazenly supporting loony anti-Muslimism and Islamophobia.

This is all the more revealing in light of a recent comment on Loonwatch from an obvious Spencer fan by the name of John Jackson on a post about Debbie Schlussel. In it Jackson agrees with another commenter Sami and says, “You do a great disservice to Robert Spencer by lumping him in with Debbie Schlussel as ‘Islamophobes’. Schlussel goes off the deep end frequently. I have never seen Spencer do the same.”

It may be true (though I don’t think so) that Spencer doesn’t go off the deep end “frequently” but he does go off the deep end — a lot. Also he takes issue with Spencer being lumped in with the likes of Schlussel, but why not? The only difference between Debbie Schlussel and Robert Spencer is that Debbie doesn’t hide her hate and vitriol against Muslims or Islam nor does she attempt to couch it in an air of objectivity. Furthermore, it wasn’t Loonwatch that first lumped Spencer in with Schlussel but the excellent report produced by FAIR titled Smearcasters.

In Spencer’s response to ALA’s cancellation he lashed out against Smearcasters and to the chagrin of John Jackson he didn’t qualify his attack by saying that some of the profiled such as Debbie Schlussel go off the “deep end frequently” or that Debbie was a “retard” as Sami wrote,  instead he defended them saying, “In reality, the “Smearcasters” report was a political hit piece on an array of the opponents of CAIR and its allied groups.”

For Spencer those profiled by Smearcasters were the victims of a “hit piece” on mere “opponents of CAIR and its allied groups.” Yes, nothing to do with their hate and bigotry Spencer! This is nothing less than an indirect endorsement of all those in the report, and so it is not us lumping in Spencer with what Spencer supporter Sami called “retards” but Spencer himself.

In the same response Spencer further goes after CAIR and defends his alliance with Geert Wilders, the controversial and fascist European politician stating,

CAIR’s Honest Ibe Hooper doesn’t have to resort to such circumlocutions. I didn’t actually have anything to do with that conference in Florida, but Hoop could just say straight out that 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.

There it is straight from his pen and that’s why Spencer keeps digging himself a hole. His support for Geert Wilders is his downfall because any objective and thorough understanding of Geert Wilders, what he has said and what he represents will prove the lie to the claim made by Spencer that he cares about Democratic freedoms and Rights because if he did he wouldn’t support Wilders and company.

Wilders is on record stating that religious freedom, a cornerstone of the foundation of modern democracies everywhere should not apply to Muslims,

Islam is not a religion… the Quran is a book that calls for hatred, that calls for violence, for murder, for terrorism, for war, and submission…We should also stop pretending that Islam is a religion…the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam.

This is not the only place that Wilders has made this statement he has repeated it to roaring applause at Synagogues and conferences.

It is unbelievable that Spencer would now attempt to posit himself as an objective academic researching and writing on Islam when he unabashedly “supports” odious and reprehensible individuals such as Geert Wilders. Who can take Spencer’s grandiose claim seriously that he is fighting for the freedom of speech, freedom of conscious, indeed for Western civilization itself against “Islamic supremacism” when he supports and calls on us to support one who would infringe on the right of individuals to freely practice their faith.

What can you expect though from one who joined a group that aimed for a reconquista of modern day Turkey, forcibly replacing its Muslim population with a Christian one?

Also Read Svend’s take: Joke of the Day: Robert Spencer as Bridge-Builder

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield seems to be a good guy. But in his response to fellow Beliefnet blogger Aziz Poonwalla’s on-point criticism of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s bizarre decision to screen the anti-Muslim hate film, The Third Jihad, he chases his tail and ends up adding unnecessary nuance to a clear-cut situation.

For example, while he acknowledges that the Wiesenthal Center is dead wrong for its support of this pathetic piece of hate propaganda, he turns around and criticizes CAIR for objecting, strangely implying that by objecting to a purported center of tolerance effectively promoting hate material, CAIR is “crying wolf.”

Huh?

In doing so, he comes off as apologetic for the Wiesenthal’s center cynical act, one that he seemed to condemn just sentences before.

Hirschfield suggests that his problem with CAIR is that it is focusing exclusively on Islamophobia. But what does he expect a press release challenging the promotion of the most vile brand of Islamophobia to focus on? Of course, he neglects to mention that CAIR, in its press releases condemning terrorism, focuses exclusively on terrorism, and so on. He uses technicalities to diminish from the topic of the hour: an insiduously anti-Muslim propaganda film being promoted by a Jewish center “for tolerance.”

Moreover, a comment that appeared on Rabbi Hirschfield’s blog calling him out on his double-speak seemed to have miraculously disappeared the next day. The comment did not include any foul language or hateful material, but logically argued the case against Rabbi Hirschfield’s whitewashing of the situation from the perspective of that user.

This of course raises questions about Rabbi Hirschfield’s own approach to freedom of speech, when it does not go his way. Why was a comment that delivered an opposing view removed?

Even more hypocrytical is the fact that a comment posted by the Clarion Fund, the makers of this hate film, was allowed to stay. This comment was little more than the company’s verbatim press release promoting the film, thereby using the Rabbi’s blog as a platform for the free promotion of hate material.

Here’s the text of the original comment posted by Motamer:

Motamer

May 19, 2009 5:17 PM

Rabbi Hirschfield,

You assume the role of the neutral sage who sends everybody to their room without regard to partisanship, but you don’t play that role too well and your biases quickly ooze through.

On the one hand you scurry to offer homage to the Weisenthal Center as a “large and influential” organization, But then you turn around and strip CAIR from the same - though it also be a “large and influential” organization. In fact, you explicitly cast your own aspersions on CAIR by entertaining the cynical and preposterous fantasy that CAIR may possibly accept that the Elders of Protocols of Zion is partially true.

This is neither fair nor honest on your part. CAIR has never said anything to lead you to believe that, indeed it has explicitly stated the very opposite. So your brand of humor, probing, or whatever that was completely backfired and only displayed your double standard in showing respect to established Jewish organizations while working to undermine respect for established Muslim organizations.

This sort of antagonism and display of contempt and disdain for Muslim enfranchisement that you - hopefully inadvertently - infuse in your piece, is in turn carried out explicitly in this film. A film whose hypocritical and deceptive nature you apologize for by pointing out that it has “elements of truth” in it. What are those elements of truth? That Muslims have a radical minority? Is that a revelation missed upon us? Do we need a new film for that? CAIR is the first to acknowledge and condemn violent and radicalized tendencies among Muslims.

Oh but that’s not even it.

You see the film is not so much concerned with “that” minority, the radical minority, the real threat. You, like the film, befuddle the tiny fact that the minority targeted in 3rd Jihad is a whole other minority, it’s the religious minority of American Muslims in the US - a minority vis-a-vis Christians, but mainstream American nonetheless - living and working through honor, hard work, and fair opportunity to represent the underrepresented.

The Third Jihad is about casting suspicion on the mainstream American Muslim establishment as some sort of fifth column conspiratorial, massively deceptive insurgency that is out to take over America. There is zero truth in this claim. That precisely invites a comparison to the Elders of Zion, and missing that on your part does not say much for your actual familiarity with the film.

Here are snapshots showing Hirschfield’s blog including the comment as it originally appeared and then after it was removed:

Motamer's Comment Showing up as Hirschfield's first comment

Click here for full screen shot.

The full comment showing up on Hirschfield's blog

Click here for full screen shot.

Motamer's comment removed and Robert R's comment now showing up first with Clarion's PR following it

Douglas Farah

In a blog entry titled, “The MB Inroads Into the Obama Administration,” Douglas Farah, yet another so-called “investigative” consultant, sets out to link American Muslim organizations to planet Zorbex, that global superpower which is able to operate in perfect coordination yet secrecy toward “sneaking in” an evil empire in the United States — Zorbex is also known as the Muslim Brotherhood, or affectionately as MB.

Douglas Farah throws a few punches around at the usual American Muslim organizations, but hones his venom in this piece at Prof. John “the architect” Esposito, and Dalia “the insider” Mogahed.

Let’s start with Esposito:

Farah: “The architect is Dr. John Esposito, a long time defender of the MB and the head of the Saudi-financed Georgetown University Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the Walsh School of Foreign Service.”

Why is Douglas Farah threatened by the concept of Muslim-Christian Understanding?

Because it actually gets people talking to each other, rather than secluding from each other and retiring to wild speculation and demagoguery about one another. The latter is what the Douglas Farah’s, Daniel Pipes’, and Steven Emerson’s of the world desperately need in order to stay in business.

For most people, universities, especially well-established and credible top institutions like Georgetown University are a service to society. Not so to the conspiracy loons like Douglas Farah. He is willing to argue that Georgetown with all of its gargantuan bureaucracy and what that may include in checks and balances is but one sweeping front for the Muslim Brotherhood. In a similar vein, all of the national American Muslim organizations (Farah’s blog piece mentions CAIR, MPAC, and CSID by name) are but one sweeping secretive front for that same ominous superpower, that struggling Egyptian party, the Muslim Brotherhood.

But hey, Douglas Farah is no dummy. He is sure to provide proof for his arguments. You ready? Georgetown, presumably like those orgs, is….. “Saudi-financed!”

Who is he talking about? Well, Prince Al Waleed bin Talal. Who is Prince Al Waleed bin Talal, that prince of darkness and anti-Americanism? Well, we’ll get to that in the last of three points that explain the major problems with Douglas Farah’s argument:

1. The much larger picture. Has he ever heard of philanthropy? That thing that tends to be a long and strong legacy in the United States. How does he think most US private institutions receive a good chunk of their assets? There are hundreds of examples of wealthy financiers of US academic institutions both American and foreign. Does he pin an agenda on each depending on where they were born or the faith they espouse? For example, does he look at a Jewish Hungarian philanthropist who donates to an Ivy league school and scream “Zionist agenda?” Not only does he not do so, but if others did, he would be blogging about anti-Semitism. Good, but then why does he engage in the reverse?

 

2. The slightly larger picture. Georgetown is Saudi-financed? As in Georgetown exclusively? How about the United States is Saudi-financed? Try on the order of $860 billion in Saudi investments to the U.S. economy. Now one may legitimately have an issue with that. It’s a good debate to have. But Douglas Farah is being hypocritical when he cherry picks Georgetown for criticism on that point.

 

3. The full picture. Much has been made about Prince Al Waleed bin Talal’s donations to Georgetown and American Muslim organizations. The donations are made out to be some sort of dubious evil secretive Wahhabi endeavor. But again, anyone familiar with reality can see through the bull. The conspiracy theorists happen to neglect a few small facts that may give an entirely different picture. Georgetown and these American Muslim organizations are in the same league with AOL, Apple Inc., Worldcom, Motorola, News Corporation Ltd, the Four Seasons hotel chain and the Plaza Hotel in New York, London’s Savoy Hotel, Monaco’s Monte Carlo Grand Hotel, Euro Disney SCA, Fairmont Hotels – and yes, President George H. W. Bush. Al-Waleed who is a major investor in all of these companies donated $500,000 to the George Herbert Walker Bush Scholarship Fund, established by Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, to honor the former President.Or how about the epitome of Western intelligensia: Harvard University. Al-Waleed donated $20 million to Harvard, one of its 25 largest donations. Al-Waleed donated $10 million to Cornell University to study complex genomic and cellular systems as they relate to medicine and biology by using mathematical models, physics and high-speed computing. Al-Waleed donated $20 million to the Louvre Museum in Paris, the World’s top temple of art, its largest gift ever.Now if Al-Waleed is part of an undercover Wahhabi front to establish a caliphate in the West, he is one dumb bastard. I mean that would be one heck of an expensive route with way too much irreversible contradictions on the way. Here’s a whopping $30 million in financing for “Western” halmarks like liberalism, art, and genomes — oh but then here’s a tiny fraction of that amount given to the evil Muslim organizations that will trump all of that - and some - with their impending anti-Western Caliphate. It’s fool proof. Ingenious! Nihohaha.

Next is Dalia Mogahed:

There is no need to even get into Doug’s off-point hate there. Hussein Ibish hit it on the head in a comment on the same blog:

OK, so let’s review, then, the case against Dalia Mogahed:

1. Born in Egypt
2. Worked for Gallup
3. Wrote a book with a Georgetown professor
4. Had a co-worker who used to work for MPAC
5. Used to work for a mosque in which one person lost a security clearance and another person has immigration issues
6. Father is associated with a different mosque, whose website links to American Muslim organizations
7. That mosque was headed by a guy who now has a job with one of those groups.

Egypt, Gallup, Georgetown, a former coworker, some guy’s immigration problems, a mosque’s website, some other guy’s new job. Wow. Case closed. She is definitely an operative of the Muslim Brotherhood. Another brilliant piece of reporting, Doug!

— Hussein Ibish Apr 14, 03:27 #

As you seem to not know, the MB is a web of relationships, including and particularly Georgetown and Esposito. Sorry that was lost on you.

— Douglas Farah Apr 14, 09:07 #

oooh. Doug got you there Hussein! How can the web be lost on you? How can anyone with a name like Hussein be trusted to get it right anyway…

The serious question though is, why does Douglas Farah, an investigative consultant (whatever that means) fail to “investigate” and disclose the full facts to his readers? Why does he do the sloppy cut-and-paste thing, giving a tiny portion of the facts, and then filling in the rest with conspiracy theories?

Because that is the modus operandi of the Loons. And that’s why there’s a loonwatch.

Like Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes, Farah is not interested in uncovering the real terrorist threat, he is committed to a different agenda: delegitimizing credible and mainstream Muslims, under the guise of fighting terror while taking advantage of everyone else’s genuine concerns about real terror.

While these “investigative” loons are busy with their politicization and keeping others busy with them, real terrorists will slip by as they have in the past.