(cross-posted from The Onion)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you imagine if this happened in a Muslim country? This actually happened in “secular” Israel, not Saudi Arabia or Iran and at the hands of a Rabbi.

If a Muslim cleric had done it you can be sure that Spencer and company would be wailing about how oppressive Shariah is and how there is no fun in Islam. Will we hear a peep from Spencer about this? Don’t hold your breath.

‘Sinner’ singer given 39 lashes by rabbis

A singer who performed in front of a “mixed audience” of men and women was lashed 39 times to make him “repent,” after a ruling by a self-described rabbinic court on Wednesday.

Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak, founder of the Shofar organization aimed at bringing Jews “back to religion” (hazara betshuva), has made it his recent mission to fight against musical performances for both men and women.

His “judicial panel,” with Rabbi Ben Zion Mutsafi and another member, sentenced Erez Yechiel to 39 lashes in order to “rid him of his sins.”

In a video clip of the court posted on the Shofar Web site, Ben Zion said that those who make others sin (mahtiei rabim), such as artists who make men and women attend performances or dance together, have no place in the world to come.

He displayed a leather strip he said was made by his father from ass and bull skin, with which Yechiel was to have been whipped.

Yechiel, who said, “I accept upon myself the lashing for my sins,” was ordered to stand by a wooden poll with his head facing north (“from whence the evil inclination comes”), his hands tied with a azure-colored rope (“a symbol of mercy”), and served his “sentence.”

A real "scholar" of Islam: Sherman A. Jackson

Dr. Sherman Jackson of the University of Michigan tackles the issue of Shariah in a brief summary about how misinformation and cultural perceptions of the Islamic legal system have fed anti-Muslim viewpoints.

Shariah: Between Two Popes

By Dr. Sherman A. Jackson via The Huffington Post

While it started out as a minor footnote, opposition tosharî’ah has now morphed into the mantra by which many justify their opposition to the so-called “Ground Zero mosque.” If we allow this mosque to go forth, so the logic goes, the next thing you know, all the bars in the country will be shut down (and those infidel lushes flogged!), all the women will be draped in sheets, and Muhammad will replace Jacob as the most popular name in America. Allahu akbar!

While some of this hysteria is clearly being peddled by people who know better, most Americans are probably just engaged in a good-faith attempt to understand and respond to sharî’ah through the only prism they have: their own historical experience. I was recently reminded of this on a visit to Cairo, during which time two popes, one Catholic, the other Coptic, expressed almost mutually contradictory sentiments about sharî’ah. The chasm separating their perspectives related not to their different levels of knowledge about sharî’ah but almost entirely to their differences in historical experience.

I arrived in Cairo on the first of June. On 29 May, the High Administrative Court of Egypt had ordered the Coptic Church to issue marriage licenses to divorced Copts who wanted to remarry. The Church demurred, arguing that this went against official Church doctrine, according to which adultery, death or apostasy were the only legitimate reasons for divorce and thus the only basis upon which the Church could issue licenses to remarry. Because the couples in question did not fit any of these criteria, the Church insisted that it could not issue such licenses and that, in the name of religious freedom, the High Court should not try to force it to do so.

For the next three weeks (I left on June 19) Egyptian papers teemed with coverage of what was developing into a constitutional crisis — demonstrations, letter-writing, rallies, the whole nine. Those who supported the secular character of the Egyptian state — Muslim or Christian — argued that in the name of equality(Muslims are free to divorce and remarry) and human rights (marriage is a fundamental right) the Coptic Church should either issue the licenses or be forced to do so by the state. The most interesting position, however, was that of the Church itself. In addition to religious freedom it invoked sharî’ah in its defense! Time and again, Church officials publicly invoked such sharî’ah maxims as, “When confronted with People of the Book (Jews and Christians), adjudicate among them on the basis of their own religion.” The Coptic patriarch, Pope Shanoudah III, even went so far as to quote the Qur’ân directly in his weekly sermon: “Let the People of the Bible adjudicate according to what God revealed therein. And whoever does not adjudicate in accordance to what God reveals, they are among the corrupt” (5: 47). As if these statements were not explicit enough, in an interview published on 10 June in the official Ahramnewspaper, Pope Shanoudah stated plainly and without equivocation, “We simply ask the judges, if they want to reconcile with the Church, to apply the Islamic sharî’ah.”

It would be disingenuous, of course, to read more than tactical sophistication into the Pope’s and the Church’s position. After all, Pope Shanoudah did not rush out to sign up with the Muslim Brotherhood. Still, their statements and protestations make it clear that he and the Church understood that under sharî’ah they would enjoy the right to preserve their way of life as Christians and that the rules governing Muslims do not automatically extend to non-Muslims. One can thus imagine my surprise to read, also in the Ahram newspaper, statements by Pope Benedict XVI in which he expressed, during a visit to Cypress, fears about how Christians in the Middle East would fair under the rising tide of sharî’ah-minded Islamic resurgence. Rather than seeing in sharî’ah any protection for the rights of Christians or other minorities, Pope Benedict could only imagine it to be a threat to his co-religionists. What accounts for this difference between these two popes?

For Pope Shanoudah, sharî’ah took its definitive political character under the pre-modern order, when non-Muslim communities existed before the Muslim state, and rather than obliterate these, the state merely required them to recognize its sovereignty. For Pope Benedict, sharî’ah was seen through the prism of modern Western history, where it was presumed to be the uniform law of a homogenizing nation-state that decides if, how and according to what rules communities are to exist. For Pope Shanoudah, sharî’ah included a palpable element of “live and let live.” For Pope Benedict, sharî’ah was simply “the law of the land” — for everyone.

Most Americans share the perspective of Pope Benedict XVI. While some of this is based on simple prejudice and the massive amount of disinformation being spread about sharî’ah, I suspect that most of it is based on the simple fact that people simply view sharî’ah through the prism of their own experience as citizens of a modern state. Just as the modern state applies a single régime of rules equally across the board to all citizens, so too, they assume, must sharî’ah. This, by the way, is not only the assumption of Pope Benedict and most non-Muslim Americans; many Muslims have also imbibed this understanding. But as Pope Shanoudah’s and the Coptic Church’s tactic demonstrates, this is more indebted to Western success at universalizing its narrative than it is to the intrinsic nature of sharî’ah itself. Bottom line? Sharî’ahaccommodated the existence and lifestyles of Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians and countless others. It can live with a few bars and miniskirts and lots of Jacobs in modern America — multiracial, multicultural, multireligious modern America.

Make sure to read my article on Spencerwatch showing more of Robert Spencer’s “scholarly techniques.”

“Scholar” Robert Spencer seemed to be shocked that any sort of violence would be the end result of his constant barrage that Islam is associated with violence and terror. In a recent post, Spencer claims:

There was just one problem with all this: the attacker was a Leftist employee of an organization that has gone on record as favoring the mosque. So whatever may have been his motivation in attacking this cab driver, one thing that almost certainly wasn’t motivating him was rage over the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero.

And even if he were motivated by rage against the mosque, what would that have to do with us? Absolutely nothing. We are working on peaceful protests against the mosque, and trying to raise awareness among the American people about who is behind this effort and what its significance is. We have never advocated or condoned any violence or vigilantism — unlike the mosque’s own leader Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who refuses to condemn the bloodthirsty jihad terror group Hamas. We are not responsible by any conceivable stretch of the imagination for everything any given opponent of the mosque does.

Robert Spencer claims he has never “advocated or condoned any violence or vigilantism.” Yet, he promoted a genocidal video on his website, produced by a group responsible for ethnic violence against Muslims. He has also supported the call for the annihilation of Pakistan. In addition, Spencer wrote in his book on p.224:

The situation in Europe has grown quite grave, and something must be done. It may be that the world needs a new Crusade, though of a kind different from those led by Richard the Lionhearted and Godfrey of Bouillon. We have seen in this book that the Crusades were primarily an act of defense against the encroachment of Islam. In that sense a new Crusade is not only possible but desirable.

You remember the Crusades: where Raymond d’Aguiliers wrote:

Piles of heads, hands, and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It was necessary to pick one’s way over the bodies of men and horses. But these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of Solomon, a place where religious services are ordinarily chanted. What happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of belief. So let it suffice to say this much, at least, that in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.

And all the while, Spencer has constantly asserted that Islam and Muslims are all about “jihad,” war, terror, and violence. And anyone who says otherwise is lying to you. Look at what he said to Mark Jacobson:

“Muslims are the first immigrant group that has ever come to this country with a ready-made model of society and government they believe to be superior to what we have here,” Spencer told me. The thinking was clear to anyone who took the trouble to study the plan, the blogger and author of Stealth Jihad contended. “Muhammad said, ‘When you meet the unbelievers, invite them to accept Islam; if they refuse, offer them the dhimma—second-class status—and, if they refuse that, go to war with them.’ That’s it. Conversion, subjugation, or war. Three steps. Conversion, subjugation, or war … That’s what Muhammad said. And in chapter 33, verse 21 of the Koran, it says Muhammad is the excellent example for the Muslim, you ask any Muslim and they’ll tell you that: That is nonnegotiable, what Muhammad said goes, and that’s not some hijacker extremist Islam, that’s mainstream … This is how it is, you don’t need a bomb. I don’t think Feisal is ever going to blow anything up, because that’s not his game; his game is a societal, cultural penetration … ”

Notice that he lumps all Muslims together. No nuance; no qualification; no recognition of the reality of the world. No. “Muslims” in general. And if you keep saying things like this over, and over, and over, and over – like Spencer does – then eventually someone is going to put 1 and 1 together.

That is exactly what 21-year-old Michael Enright did. He took matters into his own hands. Read this:

On late August 24th he hailed Sharif’s cab. Enright greeted Sharif with “Assalamu Alaikum.” A flattered Sharif responded. Enright asked Sharif how his Ramadan was going, and a compliant Sharif explained it was going well. Enright then gave Sharif a hint of what was coming by proceeding to ridicule Sharif’s faith.

At the end of the ride, before stepping out of the cab, Enright then left Sharif a little piece of “freedom fighting:”

“This is the checkpoint motherfucker” and “I have to bring you down motherfucker,” shouted Enright. The New York Times reports that Enright then “withdrew a Leatherman knife and reaching through the opening in the plastic divider, slashed Mr. Sharif’s throat. When Mr. Sharif turned, he said, Mr. Enright stabbed him in his face, on his arm and on his thumbs.” Mr. Sharif pleaded: “I beg of you, don’t kill me. I worked so hard, I have a family.”

Now, of course, Mr. Enright did not say, “Robert Spencer made me do it,” and so Spencer can innocently deny that he has anything to do with this and another acts of anti-Muslim violence. Yet it interesting that Robert Spencer doesn’t distance Islam as he distances himself from anti-Muslim violence. He continually searches for bad news about Muslims and then ties it to all of Islam, using his “cut and paste scholarship” to do it. Yet, he is shocked to find that people will logically link anti-Muslim violence to his rhetoric. Are you kidding, Mr. Spencer?

What’s worse, he seems to suggest that the attack on the Muslim cabbie was somehow “made up”:

Was this attack on a Muslim cab driver in New York yet another faked hate crime designed to tar opponents of Islamic supremacism as bigoted people who are fomenting hate? It cannot be ruled out. I hope that New York investigators are honest enough and brave enough to say so if that turns out to be the case.

Are you kidding, Mr. Spencer? So, this whole attack was a fabrication? The Muslim cabbie and Michael Enright got together and conspired to fake this attack? Including the numerous injuries to his neck, fingers, throat, and shoulder? His pleas to the attacker to spare his life a sham? Was this also “taqiyya”?

How low can Robert Spencer stoop?

Jon Stewart’s Daily Show continues to take on the mosque controversy. this time Aasif Mandvi was in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, the site of a different mosque controversy.

Mosque vandalized by the American Nationalist Brotherhood (ANB), this time it is explicitly connected to the so-called “mosque at Ground Zero.” Job well done Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.

Vandalism at Madera Islamic center called hate crime

Vandalism to a Madera Islamic center and signs found on the property are being investigated as a hate crime, the Madera County Sheriff’s Department said today.

A brick was thrown at the building Friday and three signs were found at Masjid Madera, 16634 Road 26, during two other incidences since Aug. 18, said Erica Stuart, Sheriff’s Department spokeswoman. Two of the signs were found on the center’s property Tuesday afternoon.

The signs read “No Temple for the God of terrorism at Ground Zero. ANB,” “Wake up America, the Enemy is here. ANB” and “American Nationalist Brotherhood.”

Earlier reports said the brick went through a window. The sheriff’s department said later today that it struck a wall.

Anyone with information about the case is asked to call the Sheriff’s Department at (559) 675-7770 or Crime Stoppers at (559) 498-STOP.

The anti-Muslim movement, spearheaded by Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller has been ratcheting up the rhetoric against Islam and Muslims. Painting Muslims as an evil fifth column stealthily attempting to subvert our freedoms and impose a draconian totalitarian government upon us.

I mean what else did they expect when they created the Orwellian sounding organization “Stop the Islamization of America” (hat tip: Les):

Police: Cab Driver Stabbed By Passenger Who Asked “Are You Muslim?”

As of late Tuesday, no charges had been filed.

Both the driver and the passenger were taken to Bellevue Hospital.

By: NY1 News

A city cab driver is in the hospital after being stabbed by a passenger who allegedly asked if he was Muslim, police tell NY1.

Investigators with the New York City Police Department say it all began Monday night when a 21-year-old man hailed a cab at 24th Street and Second Avenue in Manhattan.

Police say the passenger asked the driver, “Are you Muslim?” When the driver said yes the passenger pulled a knife and slashed him in the throat, arm and lip.

The 43-year-old driver was able to lock the passenger in the back of the cab and call 911.

Robert Spencer, a Christian crusader who likes to cover his anti-Muslim fanaticism with a pretense to scholarship is fond of saying “Obama may be a Muslim,” and his buddy Pamela Geller often dubs Obama as a “Socialist” and “Communist.”

That’s why it is quite ironic to learn that Spencer himself in a previous incarnation used to be a Communist. In his younger days before he went zealous with Christianity Spencer was a devoted Communist,

Robert Spencer…[a] canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House in 2012, Spencer nonetheless offered that he had spent part of his youth working at Revolution Books, which is run by the Revolutionary Communist Party (and its cultish leader Bob Avakian), a hard-line Maoist group most sixties-style radicals, like, say, Bill Ayers, would consider beyond the pale.

Not only was Spencer a Commie but he was a hard core Communist, such that even the boogie monster known as Bill Ayers wouldn’t want to touch.

It is also another point of similarity between Spencer and his boss David Horowitz who used to be a Communist and now is a hardcore Conservative. Interestingly enough Spencer’s embrace of capitalism has been quite profitable, he is making six figures for his anti-Muslim work.

The article in the New York Magazine also reveals some other interesting if irrelevant tid-bits about Spencer, his father used to work for the Voice of America.

The following is the relevant portion relating to Spencer in the article, I suggest everyone read the whole thing by Mark Jacobson titled, Muhammad Comes to Manhattan:

Dhimmitude was the state to which Muslim caliphs reduced their “useful” but decidedly second-class subjects, those who had to be made to “feel themselves subdued” (the Koran, Sura 9:29), Robert Spencer told me as we dined in the T.G.I. Friday’s on the scenic lower level of Penn Station. A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House in 2012, Spencer nonetheless offered that he had spent part of his youth working at Revolution Books, which is run by the Revolutionary Communist Party (and its cultish leader Bob Avakian), a hard-line Maoist group most sixties-style radicals, like, say, Bill Ayers, would consider beyond the pale. Spencer—whose father worked for the Voice of America during the Cold War—contended that terror, the threat of the A-bomb in the burka, while worth worrying about, was “just one tactic” in Islam’s clash with the U.S. What was afoot was a more insidious thing, a burrowing infiltration of the enemy.

“Muslims are the first immigrant group that has ever come to this country with a ready-made model of society and government they believe to be superior to what we have here,” Spencer told me. The thinking was clear to anyone who took the trouble to study the plan, the blogger and author of Stealth Jihad contended. “Muhammad said, ‘When you meet the unbelievers, invite them to accept Islam; if they refuse, offer them the dhimma—second-class status—and, if they refuse that, go to war with them.’ That’s it. Conversion, subjugation, or war. Three steps. Conversion, subjugation, or war … That’s what Muhammad said. And in chapter 33, verse 21 of the Koran, it says Muhammad is the excellent example for the Muslim, you ask any Muslim and they’ll tell you that: That is nonnegotiable, what Muhammad said goes, and that’s not some hijacker extremist Islam, that’s mainstream … This is how it is, you don’t need a bomb. I don’t think Feisal is ever going to blow anything up, because that’s not his game; his game is a societal, cultural penetration … ”

After that, Spencer peered up from his plate of Caribbean chicken and bid me to look around the T.G.I. Friday’s. “Remember this moment and this spot,” he said. “Because the freedoms we enjoy are in danger. You might not know it now, because it is just beginning. But 25 or 30 years from now you’re going to think of this place and say to yourself, Spencer was right.”

• Del.icio.us
• Digg
• Facebook
• Google Buzz
• Yahoo Buzz
• Reddit
• Stumble
• Twitter
• RSS
• Email
• Print

Is this getting scarier or what? My gut feeling is the Church will not be able to go ahead with this action considering they were denied a permit by their local fire department.

Armed Christian Group to Guard Church on “Burn Koran Day”

A group that proudly calls itself Right Wing Extreme has pledged to protect a church in Gainesville , Florida that is planning to hold a Koran burning on 9/11, according to WorldCorrespondents.com, which reports as follows.

“This Press Release entitled “Armed Christian Conservative group to protect church during burning of Quran” was shared to us by Prince Shannon Carson of Right Wing Extreme.

The Christian conservative organization Right Wing Extreme has offered its support and protection for the International Burn a Quran day.

Right Wing Extreme was founded in April of 2009 after the Department of Homeland Security’s report titled Right Wing Extremism.”

Unlike the infamous cross burnings of the Ku Klux Klan which were often staged on the property of opponents to intimidate them, the Koran burning will be held on the premises of Dove Ministries International, with their enthusiastic consent. The only laws that could be used against such an event would probably deal with  air pollution rather than objectionable political expression. A case might be made that the Koran burning is a disturbance of the peace.

Unlike the Mohammed cartoon disputeof 2005, which sparked bloody riots, American Muslims have responded to the Dove Ministries provocation with American style media savvy. The Book of Signs Foundation has pledged to distribute 50 free Korans for every copy burned on 9/11. This puts Dove Ministries in a quandary. The bigger and more successful their Koran burning is, the more free copies will be distributed of the Koran.

Most Muslims in America seem to recognize that struggles for the hearts and minds of believers involve arguing and presenting one’s point of view. It is doubtful that a single Muslim will alter or change his or her faith because of the burning of the Koran.

In America, people missionize their religion and their politics. Book burnings of any sort turn people off. The scariest thing to any religious fanatic is the freedom one has in America to practice, change or reject one’s faith.

There are people who get their jollies desecrating the symbol of someone else’s faith, such as Andres Serrano in his infamous “Piss Christ” exhibit, in which he suspended a crucifix in a jar of urine. Most Americans, from devout Christians to avowed atheists and members of non Christian faiths, were disgusted by Serrano’s gratuitous slap at Christian believers. Most Americans feel the same way about the Koran burners at Dove Ministries as well.

• Del.icio.us
• Digg
• Facebook
• Google Buzz
• Yahoo Buzz
• Reddit
• Stumble
• Twitter
• RSS
• Email
• Print

This guy was behind the Lord of the Rings as well. Should be something interesting to look forward to.

Matrix Producer Plans Muhammad biopic

Producer Barrie Osborne cast Keanu Reeves as the messiah in The Matrix and helped defeat the dark lord Sauron in his record-breaking Lord of the Rings trilogy. Now the Oscar-winning American film-maker is set to embark on his most perilous quest to date: making a big-screen biopic of the prophet Muhammad.

Budgeted at around $150m (£91.5m), the film will chart Muhammad’s life and examine his teachings. Osborne told Reuters that he envisages it as “an international epic production aimed at bridging cultures. The film will educate people about the true meaning of Islam“.

Osborne’s production will reportedly feature English-speaking Muslim actors. It is backed by the Qatar-based production company Alnoor Holdings, who have installed the Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi to oversee all aspects of the shoot. In accordance with Islamic law, the prophet will not actually be depicted on screen.

“The film will shed light on the Prophet’s life since before his birth to his death,” Ahmed Abdullah Al-Mustafa, Alnoor’s chairman, told al-Jazeera. “It will highlight the humanity of Prophet Muhammad.”

The as-yet-untitled picture is due to go before the cameras in 2011. It remains to be seen, however, whether it will be beaten to cinemas by another Muhammad-themed drama. Late last year, producer Oscar Zoghbi announced plans to remake The Message, his controversial 1976 drama that sparked a fatal siege by protesters in Washington DC. The new version, entitled The Messenger of Peace, is currently still in development.

Great blog from Matthew Yglesias at ThinkProgress. He also links to Inconnu’s piece on Taqiyyah.

Obama’s Porkilicious Taqiyya

by Matthew Yglesias

Steve M at No More Mr Nice Blog falls for the White House spin hook, line, and sinker:

Anyone remember when candidate Barack Obama was getting grief for going to Philadelphia and sampling expensive Spanish ham? Doesn’t sound like something a secret Muslim would eat — nor is the honey-baked ham the Obamas served along with the turkey last Thanksgiving. The half-smoke he got at Ben’s Chili Bowl a couple of weeks before Inauguration Day is a sausage that’s half-pork, half-beef. Oh, and the beer at that beer summit didn’t quite comport with the teachings of the Koran, did it? But all that was just weaving a web of deceit, right?

I’ll admit that for a long time my own views were along these lines. After all, the very first time I met State Senator (and US Senate candidate) Barack Obama we were at a hotel in Boston (I believe it was the Westin Copley Place) on line at a breakfast buffet fighting for the tongs to grab some bacon. But then I learned all about taqiyya which proves that counter-evidence to the “secret Muslim” thesis only demonstrates how far the conspiracy goes.

TIME has come out with a poll on the prevailing mood amongst Americans toward the mosque and toward their fellow Muslim citizens. What does this mean for the future of religious freedom and the failure of our leaders and the media in tackling this story?

Majority Oppose Mosque, and most Distrust Muslims

Opponents of the planned Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan have public opinion firmly in their corner. According to a new TIME poll, 61% of respondents oppose the construction of the Park51/Cordoba House project, compared to 26% who support it. More than 70% concur with the premise that proceeding with the plan would be an insult to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Opposition to the project appears to derive largely from the conviction that the proposed site of the project — just two blocks from Ground Zero, in a building that formerly housed a Burlington Coat Factory outlet — is so close to “hallowed ground,” as President Obama put it.

Yet the survey also revealed that many Americans harbor lingering animosity toward Muslims. Twenty-eight percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Nearly one third of the country thinks adherents of Islam should be barred from running for President — slightly higher than the 24% who mistakenly believe that the current occupant of the Oval Office is himself a Muslim. In all, just 47% of respondents believe Obama is a Christian; 24% declined to respond to the question or said they were unsure, and 5% believe he is neither Christian nor Muslim. (See TIME’s photo-essay “Muslim in America.”)

And while more Americans are open to the idea of having a mosque built in their neighborhoods than near Ground Zero, it’s still not an overwhelming majority; 55% of respondents say they would favor the construction of an Islamic community center and mosque two blocks from their own homes, and an equal number say they believe most Muslims are “Patriotic Americans.”

As he attempts to shepherd the U.S. through the sluggish economic recovery and galvanize Democratic voters ahead of a congressional election cycle in which the party is expected to sustain heavy losses, Obama’s approval rating has held relatively steady, at a near-even split: 46% of respondents back his job performance, with 45% expressing disapproval. Voters are far less enthusiastic about the President’s policies, however, with 57% asserting the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction.

That wasn’t the only grim news for Democrats. The GOP has snatched the lead in generic Congressional balloting, with 43% of likely voters saying they would vote for a Republican candidate if the midterm elections were held today, compared to 37% for Democrats. (Last month, Democrats held a slight edge in generic balloting, 43%-42%.) While those figures augur well for the GOP, harping on the mosque issue — a tactic many Republicans appear to have embraced as the overheated debate nears a boiling point — seems unlikely to give the party’s fortunes a significant boost. Nearly three quarters of voters told TIME the issue will not have any impact on their decisions in the ballot box.(Read “Ground Zero: Exaggerating the Jihadist Threat.”)

While the poll revealed that prejudice toward Muslims is widespread, respect for other religions traditions remains sturdy. Respondents held the Jewish faith in the highest regard, with 75% professing to hold a favorable impression-just slightly higher than attitudes toward Protestants and Catholics. Fifty-seven percent say they have a favorable view of the Mormon faith, compared to 44% for Muslims. Despite (or perhaps because of) this widespread antipathy, 62% of respondents say they don’t personally know a Muslim American.

The poll, conducted by ABT SRBI, surveyed 1,002 adults — 89% of whom identified themselves as likely voters — on Aug. 16-17.

Zia Ulahaq

Osman Adnan is a Muslim-American veteran. He is for the mosque near Ground Zero. Is he an Islamic supremacist?  Here’ a great piece by Salon.com:

A loyal Muslim American laments the mosque mess

I am a lifelong resident of Middletown, N.J., the town that lost more victims per capita on 9/11 than anyplace in the state, and the second hardest hit city after New York. Almost 50 of our neighbors died that day, in a town of 60,000. Most of those who died worked at Cantor Fitzgerald. Although I was only 18, I was an enlisted medic with the New Jersey National Guard on that day, and I wound up on many Homeland Security missions in my four-year stint after the attack. My older brother commissioned as a U.S. Army officer after Sept. 11, and was awarded a Purple Heart during his service in Iraq. To this day he has shrapnel lodged in his body from the IED that blew up his convoy.

My brother and I are also Muslim Americans, born in the United States, of Pakistani heritage.

In our town, the wounds of 9/11 haven’t healed. Just this last July 4, I sat with a longtime friend as he cried about a mutual friend who died that day. With tears in his eyes, he thanked me and my brother for our service to our country. Now that we have returned home to New Jersey, my brother and I are sad to see that some of our fellow Americans would like to deprive us of our rights to pray for our country and our loved ones at the proposed Muslim Cultural Center near ground zero. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich even said that building a mosque in that area would be analogous to having a Nazi sign next to the Auschwitz concentration camp.

Maybe Gingrich should visit Middletown and get a reality check. I do not remember anyone chasing me out of a funeral for one of the 9/11 victims because they were offended by my being a Muslim. In Middletown, we grieved the people we lost together, as a community.

Our town is close-knit, and many of my childhood friends still reside here. I attended public school in Middletown from kindergarten through high school.  I went to grammar school birthday parties, Little League games, bar mitzvahs, proms and now weddings with the same large yet close group of friends. My first cousins are Jewish, as is my older brother’s fiancée. Another first cousin’s last name is Plumb and he is half Irish. My older brother graduated from the local Catholic high school. One of his classmates died on 9/11. He’d been born on the 4th of July; in fact, he’s the same person our friend wept remembering on this past Independence Day. A close high school friend’s father also died in the attacks. I see her from time to time, and she is one of the most remarkable people I know, carrying on with her life the way she does. I still see the pain of family members and those who lost loved ones, or who escaped from the vicinity of the World Trade Center.

In the direct aftermath of the attacks, friends and neighbors checked up on my family, not because they were suspicious, but because they wanted to make sure we were OK. When I am introduced at family or Christmas parties I never hear a bigoted remark. You could always tell how proud my friends and their parents were of me, “This is Osman, he is in the service.”

In Middletown, I belong. But beyond Middletown, it seems as though some people can’t even conceive of my existence: a Muslim American who is a patriot, who served his country, who cherishes its ideals. I am also aware of the low public perception of the United States in many Muslim countries, including Pakistan. After I graduated from law school, I decided to work as an American, building a school on the Pakistani side of Kashmir, an area where terrorists roam freely. As I got on the plane to fly to Islamabad, my mother told me, “Show them what an American is.” Carrying an American flag in my backpack and traveling dangerous roads and mountains, I helped establish a school for Afghan war refugees.

I remember teaching a young girl how to read; she was 11 years old and had never been to school before. Pulling out the American flag from my backpack, I wanted to make sure she knew Middletown, and America, meant her no harm. Later, Pakistan’s national broadcast channel came to interview me. During the interview I told them that American aid was coming to build more of these schools, thanks to the Kerry-Lugar aid bill, passed just prior to my arrival in the area, which funded school construction in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Schools like this keep our troops safe in Afghanistan by limiting the recruiting ability of the Taliban and al-Qaida in Pakistan, as local people begin to see that Americans have a humanitarian mission, they are not just invaders.

I see the impulse that drove me to work as an American in Kashmir in the desire to build the Park51 Community Center. Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf and his partners want to combat Muslim extremism, terrorism and anti-Americanism, showing that America’s tradition of religious tolerance extends to Muslims, and that Muslims can live in peace with neighbors of every religion, as well. Imam Rauf, a Sufi, is no “extremist”; he advised the State Department under the past Bush administration, and worked with the FBI after 9/11. Every religion has its own group of fanatics, and extremism is not confined to Islam. New York Rep. Peter King, a Park51 opponent, not too long ago overtly supported efforts to raise money to buy weapons for the Irish Republican Army, which was considered a terrorist organization. We can take strange sections out of every religion’s holy books, if we want to paint the worst picture of that particular group.

I believe Rauf’s goal with Park51 is in harmony with the goals of our nation’s founders. George Washington himself once wrote to a Jewish congregation in Rhode Island, reassuring them of our nation’s religious tolerance. “For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” I flew halfway around the world to promote that great vision, and my brother came close to giving his life to protect it.

George Washington also reminded us to guard against the “imposters of pretended patriotism.” Mr. Gingrich and Mrs. Palin: Please do not confuse the public and slander all Muslim-Americans as being responsible for 9/11. Please don’t tell my shrapnel-scarred war hero brother that he is no different than the 9/11 hijackers. Sadly, you represent the very spirit of intolerance you attack in others.

Marisol, who presumably posts when Spencer is not around, blogged about a Muslim women’s shelter in Tulsa that she titled, Shelter helps abused women in Kabul? No. In Riyadh? No. Where? In Tulsa.

You can’t win with these Islamophobes. First they complain about the domestic violence in the Muslim world and how women have no recourse to shelters, and then they complain about the existence of such shelters arguing that they are indicative of inherent misogyny and violence in Islam and amongst Muslim males.

Marisol asks the question,

Why does such a relatively small population need a dedicated Muslim women’s shelter for domestic abuse?

The truth is about 15 women, most of whom have been Muslim (meaning not all) have been housed at the shelter since it opened. The Muslim population of Tulsa is estimated between 6,000 and 8,000.

Marisol then answers her own question by stating that Islam and the Quran are the problem. Read the rest at Spencerwatch.com.

A different New York Muslim story.

Once in a while we like to showcase positive stories that reflect the goodness in people and efforts to contribute to bettering society.

Yusuf Ramelize is a devout Muslim who is taking the initiative to make a difference for homeless people.

Graphic designer will be ‘Homeless for one Week’ in Union Square Park to raise money, awareness

by Irving Dejohn

A Queens man is hoping to turn sleeping on the streets into big bucks for the homeless.

Yusef Ramelize, a 33-year-old graphic designer, will leave his Ozone Park apartment Sunday and take up residence in Union Square Park. He won’t shower and he won’t have shelter during his “Homeless for One Week” project.

“My reasoning for doing this is to inspire people to make sacrifices within their own lives,” Ramelize said of his project, now in its second year.

He raised $3,635 in March 2009 and donated it to the Coalition for the Homeless. This year’s beneficiary will be the Food Bank of New York.

Ramelize will hand out flyers and keep a videotaped diary of his experiences in order to help elicit donations on his website, homelessforoneweek.com.

“It’s really about me pushing myself to see how much of a sacrifice I’m willing to make every year to get the word out,” Ramelize said.

Ramelize chose Union Square to pay homage to his biggest inspiration, Mohandas Gandhi, who is immortalized with a statue on the west side of the park.

“That’s one of the reasons I did it here,” Ramelize admits. “He wanted to bring peace around him, and he was willing to sacrifice his life.”

As if braving the elements for seven days wasn’t enough, the slender Ramelize will also be fasting from sunrise to sunset for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

His employer, Informa, gave him the week off without forcing him to dip into his vacation time – something Ramelize said he’s grateful for. His boss, Nora Pastenkos, said it was a “no-brainer” to allow him to take the time to pursue his cause.

“Many people just walk by the homeless. He’s one of those unique people who doesn’t just walk by – he tries to make a difference,” Pastenkos said.

This is Inoconnu’s refutation of Chapter 6 of Robert Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).  After reading this, check out Danios’ article at SpencerWatch, which analyzes the concept of taqiyya in great detail..

An oft-used intellectual cop-out by many Islam-haters is the so-called doctrine of taqiyya. The Islam-haters, such as Robert Spencer, claim taqiyya is the willful deception of Muslims towards non-Muslims. Whenever a Muslim would say or write something positive about Islam, it is all taqiyya. This is what Spencer has to say in his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades):

Muhammad minced no words about the necessity of telling the truth…However, as with so many other Islamic principles, this is largely a matter between believers. When it comes to unbelievers–particularly those who are at war with Muslims–Muhammad enunciated a quite different principle: “War is deceit.” Specifically, he taught that lying was permissible in battle…

When Shi’ite Muslims were persecuted by Sunnis, they developed the doctrine of taqiyya, or concealment: They could lie about what they believed, denying aspects of their faith that were offensive to Sunnis…Closely related to this is the doctrine of kitman, or mental reservation, which is telling the truth, but not the whole truth, with an intention to mislead…Remember that the next time you see a Muslim spokesman on television professing his friendship with non-Muslim Americans and his loyalty to the United States. Of course, he may be telling the truth–but he may not be telling the whole truth or he may be just lying. (pp.79-81)

Clearly, his implication is the latter, not the former: the Muslim is not telling the whole truth or “may be just lying.”

Yet, it is necessary to begin with the principle of truthfulness in Islam, which Spencer himself admitted the Prophet Muhammad stressed. Many thanks to Sheila Musaji for compiling the following verses and Prophetic traditions, of which are posted a few:

“And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is).  (Qur’an, 2:42)”

“If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, Let the trustee (Faithfully) discharge His trust, and let him fear his Lord. Conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it,- His heart is tainted with sin. And God Knoweth all that ye do.  (Qur’an, 2:283)”

“O ye who believe! Stand out firmly For justice, as witnesses To Allah, even as against Yourselves, or your parents, Or your kin, and whether It be (against) rich or poor: For Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (Of your hearts), lest ye Swerve, and if ye Distort (justice) or decline To do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted With all that ye do.  (Qur’an, 4:135)”

[...]

Abdullah bin Mas`ud (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Prophet (PBUH) said, “Truth leads to piety and piety leads to Jannah. A man persists in speaking the truth till he is enrolled with Allah as a truthful. Falsehood leads to vice and vice leads to the Fire (Hell), and a person persists on telling lies until he is enrolled as a liar”.’

It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “The signs of the hypocrite are three: when he speaks, he lies; when he makes a promise, he breaks it; and when he is entrusted with something, he betrays that trust.” (Narrated by al-Bukhari, 33; Muslim, 59)

Hasan bin `Ali (May Allah be pleased with them) said: I remember (these words) from Messenger of Allah (PBUH): “Give up what is doubtful to you for that which is not doubtful; for truth is peace of mind and falsehood is doubt”.  [At-Tirmidhi].

Hakim bin Hizam (May Allah be pleased with him) reported that: Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “Both parties in a business transaction have a right to annul it so long as they have not separated; and if they tell the truth and make everything clear to each other (i.e., the seller and the buyer speak the truth, the seller with regard to what is purchased, and the buyer with regard to the money) they will be blessed in their transaction, but if they conceal anything and lie, the blessing on their transaction will be eliminated.’‘
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

It is clear that Islam (and its Prophet) stresses the utmost importance of speaking the truth and being as truthful as possible. Spencer himself admits this, but he inserts a (huge) caveat that it is only “between believers.” As will be seen, this is completely untrue.

Let us begin with Spencer’s first indictment of the Prophet: “War is deceit.”

This statement comes from the Battle of the Trench. After the siege of the city of Medina had lasted for almost 30 days, and the Muslims were in dire straits.  The Prophet Muhammad asked a man named Nuaym ibn Masud to break the deadly siege somehow.  Nuaym said he could do this but that “this requires me to lie.”

Let’s stop here. Why did he ask this permission from the Prophet Muhammad if, according to Spencer, lying to non-believers is standard practice? Because, as noted above, the principle in Islam is honesty. The Prophet gave him specific permission to lie saying, “War is deceit.”

This is the context of the Prophet’s statement, “War is deceit.” Spencer, however, claims that this phrase, “War is deceit,” gives Muslims carte blance to lie to all non-Muslims all the time. Logically, it is pure rubbish.

Yet, when one thinks of it, is not good policy to deceive one’s enemy during war? Is it not good strategy to decieve the enemy in order to defeat him? What is wrong with saying, “War is deceit”? Yet, are there others that have said the same thing?

Of course!

In fact, “War is deceit” is one of the oldest military principles in history. It is found in none other than The Art of War by Sun Tzu, a Chinese strategist from the Sixth Century B.C. This book is the oldest military treatise in the world. In Part I, principle No. 18 says:

All warfare is based on deception.

Was Sun Tzu advocating Taqiyya? Is this something to be condemned, as Spencer condemns the Prophet?

How about the Trojan Horse, a story from one of the oldest poems in Western Civilization?

Still seeking to gain entrance into Troy, clever Odysseus (some say with the aid of Athena) ordered a large wooden horse to be built. Its insides were to be hollow so that soldiers could hide within it.

Once the statue had been built by the artist Epeius, a number of the Greek warriors, along with Odysseus, climbed inside. The rest of the Greek fleet sailed away, so as to deceive the Trojans.

One man, Sinon, was left behind. When the Trojans came to marvel at the huge creation, Sinon pretended to be angry with the Greeks, stating that they had deserted him. He assured the Trojans that the wooden horse was safe and would bring luck to the Trojans.

Only two people, Laocoon and Cassandra, spoke out against the horse, but they were ignored. The Trojans celebrated what they thought was their victory, and dragged the wooden horse into Troy.

That night, after most of Troy was asleep or in a drunken stupor, Sinon let the Greek warriors out from the horse, and they slaughtered the Trojans.

Were the Greeks also practicing Taqiyya? Why doesn’t Spencer condemn the Greeks, the Fathers of Western Civilization, for practicing deceit in times of war?

Not only did Sun Tzu write of deception in warfare, but Italian Renaissance thinker Niccolo Machiavelli wrote:

Though fraud in other activities may be detestable, in the management of war it is laudable and glorious, and he who overcomes the enemy by fraud is as much to be praised as he who does by force.

How about more recent times? During World War II, there was a military operation called “Operation Fortitude.” It was a disinformation campaign to deceive the Germans about the Normandy invasion:

“Fortitude” was the codename given to the decoy (or disinformation) mission mounted by the Allies to deceive the Germans about the date and above all the place of the landings. The latter were convinced that the British and American attack would come in the Pas-de-Calais area and it was important not to disillusion them. They therefore had to be made to think that a whole group of armies was present in Kent, opposite the Pas-de-Calais.

To deceive the German observation planes, which their antiaircraft defences did their best to avoid, the local estuaries, creeks and harbours were crammed with dummy landing craft, made out of bits and bobs. A giant oil pumping head for PLUTO (made from papier mâché) was erected near Dover, while large numbers of inflatable rubber tanks were positioned in the fields. Plywood vehicles and guns lined the roadsides. At night, convoys of lorries ‑ always the same ones – drove back and forth across the region. For the benefit of the Germans, a team of technicians maintained constant radio traffic between totally fictitious units.

Fortitude succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Long after June 6^th, Hitler remained convinced that the Normandy Landings were a diversionary tactic to induce him to move his troops away from the Pas-de-Calais, so that a decisive attack could then be launched there. He therefore kept his best units in readiness there, until the end of July, desperately scanning an empty horizon, while the fate of the war was being decided in Normandy.

Dr. Joseph Caddell, Lecturer on Military History at North Carolina State University, wrote in 2004:

Deception in warfare is probably as old as armed conflict itself. The logic of confusing an adversary is obvious, and the rewards can be realized very quickly.

On the website of the Air University, the military education system for the United States Air Force, there is a list of numerous books, documents, and periodicals that chronicle deception in WW I and WW II. Here is just some of the examples of the books written about deception in warfare:

Barros, James and Gregor, James. Double Deception: Stalin, Hitler, and the Invasion of Russia. DeKalb, IL, Northern Illinois University Press, 1995. 307 p.
Book call no.: 940.532247 B277d

Basic Deception and the Normandy Invasion. New York, Garland, 1989. 1 vol.
Book call no.: 940.5485 C873 v.15

Breuer, William B. Hoodwinking Hitler: The Normandy Deception. Westport, CT, Praeger, 1993. 263 p.
Book call no.: 940.54 B846h

Breuer, William B. The Secret War with Germany: Deception, Espionage, and Dirty Tricks 1939-1945. Novato, CA, 1988. 318 p.
Book call no.: 940.5485 B846s

As is quite clear, deception during times of warfare is not only standard procedure, but is a laudable and necessary tactic. Our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan use deception every single day to try to defeat the enemy. They would be blameworthy if they did not do so. Why doesn’t Robert Spencer condemn Sun Tzu, or the Greeks, or Allied Forces in WW II, or the U.S. Air Force for advocating deception in warfare? After all, all of these people also believe, as the Prophet Muhammad did, that “war is deceit.”

Robert Spencer’s claim that “war is deceit” to impugn the Prophet Muhammad and Islam is another case of Spenceritis. It is logical rubbish, and makes a mockery of the claim that Robert Spencer is any sort of “scholar” about Islam.

Also check out Danios’ excellent article on the same topic available on SpencerWatch.com. He refutes every single argument the Islamophobes raise about taqiyya.

If you listened to Pamela and company who would’ve thought there were New Yorkers for the mosque and cultural center?

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBzK-bSkKzU&feature=related 350 300]

Even those who used to debate whether Islamophobia exits or not probably have no leg to stand on, as it is evident with all the rhetoric and flashpoints across America, Islamophobia is on the rise.

Bryan Fischer a leader in the conservative American Family Association echoes Euro-supremacist Geert Wilders statements that Islam isn’t a religion. This line of attack is becoming more and more common.

Conservative activist calls for nationwide mosque moratorium

by John Cook

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dauhe5be7Rc&feature=player_embedded 350 300]

One of the leaders of the conservative American Family Association has taken the debate over the Cordoba Mosque in lower Manhattan to a new level. Bryan Fischer, the group’s director of issue analysis, is calling on his blog and radio show for a nationwide moratorium on the construction of any mosque, anywhere. “Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America, let alone the monstrosity planned for Ground Zero,” Fischer wrote on Tuesday. “This is for one simple reason: each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government.”

That’s an odd position for an ostensibly religious organization to have. But it’s especially odd because the American Family Association filed a federal lawsuit in 2003 accusing a county government in Georgia of violating federal law and the Constitution for refusing to grant a permit to build a church.

As we’ve mentioned previously, many of the groups who have endorsed the idea of using preservation laws to block the construction of the mosque have previously argued precisely the opposite when the imperiled project was a church. Indeed, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) explicitly bars local governments from “implement[ing] a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of … a religious assembly or institution,” unless there’s a compelling government interest in doing so. Many of the groups that have come out against the mosque — and in favor of stopping it with land-use laws — have filed federal lawsuits under the act.

You can add the American Family Association to their number. In 2003, the AFA helped the Victory Tabernacle Missionary Baptist Church in Henry County, Ga., file a federal lawsuit accusing the county of violating RLUIPA, as well as Victory’s constitutional rights to free exercise of religion, due process, and equal protection under the laws, for refusing to grant a building permit for a new church. The group prevailed, and celebrated the win in the AFA newsletter.

Now the AFA appears to be advocating the express violation of the very law that allowed for that victory, under the theory that mosques don’t count. A call to the AFA to clear up the inconsistency was not immediately returned.

UPDATE: Fischer returned our phone call. Turns out we weren’t too far off: Mosques don’t count! “I’m not a lawyer,” he told The Upshot, “but I have a layman’s understanding of the RLUIPA. And there’s a key difference between that case and mosques: Islam is not just a religion. It’s a subversive ideology. And as a subversive ideology, they can’t seek protection under the First Amendment.” Since Islam is really a political movement that advocates the imposition of sharia, he said, it doesn’t deserve the same sort of protections that the Victory Tabernacle Missionary Church gets. By the way: One of the bad things about sharia, according to Fischer, is “there is no such thing as religious liberty.” Sounds awful.

Fischer went on to say that “the First Amendment was designed to provide religious liberty for the Christian faith,” but that he is happy to let other religions enjoy its protections so long as they’re not “subversive.” Asked to identify any other subversive religions aside from Islam as a point of comparison, he came up empty. Not even Satanism? “Not that I’m aware of,” he said.

Finally, we asked Fischer why, if Islam is so dangerous, he’s stopping at a moratorium on new mosques. Why not shut down the ones that already exist? “We need to take things one step at a time here,” he said. “We need to turn off the hose first, and then we can figure out how to clean up the mess.”

Fischer said he was speaking as a talk-radio host (he hosts a show on the American Family Radio network),  and not as a representative of the AFA, which “hasn’t taken a position on the building of mosques.”

Hilarious Jon Stewart once again, this time taking on the growing anti-Muslim sentiment across the nation.

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) ranked Robert Spencer as the second leading Islamophobe in the country, losing out the number one position to his boss and financier David Horowitz.  Former Nixon advisor Robert Crane calls out Spencer as “the principal leader…in the new academic field of Islam-bashing.”  Even though Horowitz can be credited with funding the modern day online Crusade against Islam, it is Robert Spencer who fights on the online battlefield, attacking his Muslim foes and their liberal dhimmi allies.  In order to bolster his credibility, Spencer and his allies not only claim that he is a scholar, but his own website touts him as “the acclaimed scholar of Islam”.  Because these words are boldly emblazoned on his own site, we can only assume that he takes such claims seriously.  It is thus fair game to call him to task for this.

His claims notwithstanding, Robert Spencer simply does not possess any scholarly credentials.  To be seriously considered a scholar in the academic world in this day and age, one must at minimum possess some rudimentary academic education in the field in which one is claiming scholarship. In order to be considered a scholar, one must have published numerous peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals, the articles being subjected to rigorous critique by established authorities before being accepted.  First year students in Ph.D. programs have published far more of such articles than Robert Spencer ever has.  There is good reason for that: Spencer has published no such articles, contenting  himself with reproducing work in non-academic and populist publications.  Spencer does not even possess a Master’s Degree in anything related to Islam, let alone a Ph.D. and post-doctoral fellowship.  Spencer does have in M.A. in the field of early Christian studies; does that make him a scholar of Christianity?  If not, then why is he considered a scholar of Islam without even an M.A. in Islamic studies?

It seems that Spencer wishes to bypass the minimum of eight years of studies needed to even be considered a serious student (let alone a scholar) and wishes simply to anoint himself the title of “scholar.”  It is difficult to take any of his supporters seriously when they claim someone is “the acclaimed scholar of Islam” when he does not even have a Master’s Degree in the subject.  Spencer’s followers, fans, and sister sites refer to him as a “scholar” and that’s enough of a credential for him.  Ahmed Rehab wrote an excellent article on the Huffington Post that succinctly sums up Robert Spencer’s (lack of) “qualifications” as a scholar:

Spencer postures himself as an “Islamic Scholar.” But unlike most people we tend to call “scholars,” Spencer did not burden himself with the traditional scholarly route that puts an emphasis on objectivity and academic rigor.

There is a good reason for this: his “scholarly” methodologies would not jive in any of our nation’s accredited PhD programs let alone a path for tenure where he would have to get his papers peer-reviewed and have his methodology checked by notable scholars for objectivity and a lack of bias (unless, of course, David Horowitz decides to build the David Horowitz Freedom University).

Spencer dismisses such criticism as follows: he is right, and all of the tenured professors of Islamic studies, with their inconvenient knack for unbiased scholarship, are wrong. After all, universities are the establishment of the left-wing liberal conspiracy.

Besides who needs peer-reviewed papers, Spencer seems content to receive rave reviews from Weasel Zippers, Nice Doggie, Atlas Shrugs, Muslims are Terrorists, and of course, frontpagemag.com, that other gem of a creation, and bastion of objectivity, by the guy who cuts his checks.

Now, I will be the first to admit that there are plenty of problems in the Muslim world. I welcome an honest and responsible critique any day. But honest and responsible Spencer’s agenda-driven hatemongering is not. I am not not the only one to take issue with Spencer’s technique. Most objective scholars and professors of Islamic studies dismiss the guy as laughably fraudulent and amateur.

The fact that Robert Spencer posits himself as a “scholar” calls to question his credibility, and one cannot escape the conclusion that he is nothing but an intellectual huckster.  Just as we would view a person as a quack for claiming to be a physician without having gone to medical school, likewise we must declare Spencer a fraud.  Quite frankly, he is a boldfaced liar, for claiming to be something that he is not.  His claims to scholarship ought not be taken seriously, and his title of “the acclaimed scholar of Islam” ought to be considered the epitome of hilarity.

Neither is Robert Spencer’s methodology scholarly.  Because he is not accustomed to nor subjected to scholarly peer review, Spencer can use populist arguments that appeal to the layperson but not to the serious student or scholar.  Ahmed Rehab explains Spencer’s basic methodology:

So let us take a quick look at the crux of Spencer’s methodology which is as disingenuous as his conclusions are sensational. In fact, it can be analogized to the three acts of a magic trick as described in the movie The Prestige.

The Set Up: Spencer and his associates scour the web for the most sensational and extreme expressions within the Muslim world. They may be related to a certain extremist interpretation of Islam, or may not even have anything to do with Islam altogether, but that won’t matter, so long as the perpetrator is a Muslim, it will do.

The Performance: Spencer then supplants his own commentary on the story which he meticulously crafts with the ultimate goal of convincing his readers that the bizarre incident in question is representative of the faith of Islam and Muslims at large. This subtle leap of faith that he hopes no one notices is the key to his magic act.

The Prestige: He can then rightly claim, with the innocence of a schoolboy, that he does not make up the material he produces, that he is merely quoting things as is, hoping no one notices that he uses the aberrant to define the normative.

Rehab’s analysis is good, but it seems necessary to add the missing element.  Yes, it is true that Spencer points to the most extremist interpretations of Islam and then claims they represent the faith.  But he also points to ultraconservative interpretations of Islam (which ought not be considered exactly synonymous with “the most extremist interpretations of Islam”) and then reinforces the authority of these interpretations by quoting texts from the classical Islamic texts.  It does not matter to Spencer or his audience that these medieval texts were written hundreds of years ago; these views become the “normative” understanding of the religion.  He ignores the fact that, like Judaism and Christianity, Islamic thought is not static and has developed over the last century.  It is thus that a contemporary Muslim can read an ancient legal text without taking it as the Gospel truth, perhaps agreeing with it in general but disagreeing on certain points.  But to Spencer, a Muslim who picks up any such book must automatically agree with it 100%, without question.

Spencer’s work involves labeling the extremist or ultraconservative views of Islam as “the real (and only) Islam” 70% of the time, and wholesale fabrication 30% of the time.  This 70/30 strategy works well for him, because he can claim that he didn’t make up the 70% by quoting REAL Muslims who say such.  And the remaining 30% is slipped in between the 70%, requiring an astute and informed mind to catch it.  Let’s see this article of Spencer’s to see the 70/30 strategy in action.  He makes two arguments on that page, as follows:

The two recent cases in which I was involved had to do with the closure of the gates of ijtihad and the arrangement of Qur’anic suras…

1. The gates of ijtihad are closed…

2. The Qur’an is arranged from the longest to the shortest chapters…

Point #1 is the 70%, and point #2 is the 30%.  In point #1, Spencer claims that the “gates of ijtihad” are closed.  The Arabic word ijtihad refers to the independent analysis of the Quran and Prophetic traditions.  If the gate is closed, this means that Muslims are “stuck with” the traditional opinions expressed hundreds of years ago during a very intolerant time in world history.  In other words, Muslims cannot reform their religion because the gates of ijtihad are closed.

To “prove” his claim, Spencer says: “Here is some material from Muslims” and then quotes a few random Muslims who said as much, linking to an Islamic website.  This is how Spencer cites sources, using as authoritative even no-name random websites.  For example, on p.76 of his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Spencer makes the following incredible claim:

…As many as 75 percent of the imprisoned women in Pakistan are, in fact, behind bars for the crime of being a victim of rape. [34]

When one flips to the back of his book, one reads that the source, footnote [34], reads:

[34] See Sisters in Islam, “Rape, Zina, and Incest,” April 6, 2000, http://www.muslimtents.com/sistersinislam/resources/sdefini.htm

The link is broken, but the site he sourced has been archived here.  It’s just  random website that says:

In Pakistan, it is reported that three out of four women in prison under its Hudud laws, are rape victims.

“It is reported…”?  By whom?  What authority?  Who reported it?  There is no footnote, reference, or citation given.  But Spencer uses it anyways, assuming that his opponents are simply supposed to accept it because it is “your side” saying it.  No academic publication would ever accept such a spurious reference.  A real scholar, whose work would regularly be subjected to scholarly critique (i.e. peer-reviewed), would never even cite like such.  The number 75% is truly astronomical and beyond belief.  Likewise, Spencer “backs up” his claim about the gates of ijtihad by citing REAL LIFE Muslims, as if somehow quoting from “your side” will prove his statement.  For example, he says:

Then there’s this from Muslim-Canada.org:

“Thus the schools of the four Imams remain intact after a thousand years have passed, and so the ‘Ulama’ recognize since the time of these Imams no Mujtahid of the first degree. Ibn Hanbal was the last….Since their Imam Qazi Khan died (A.H. 592), no one has been recognized by the Sunnis as a Mujtahid even of the third class.”

A mujtahid is someone qualified to perform ijtihad. Ahmed ibn Hanbal died in 855 AD. Qazi Khan died in 1196.

The truth is that his claim that the gates of ijtihad are closed is bogus, because there is no real such thing as “gates of ijtihad.”  It’s just a phrase used, and is not a real physical thing.  Some conservative elements in the Islamic world believe that the gates of ijtihad are closed, and Spencer quotes these Muslims as “proof.”  But there is no dearth of Muslims who think otherwise.  The gates of ijtihad are open for whoever wants them to be open, and closed for whoever wants them to be closed.  Indeed, this has always been the case, with jurists who lived hundreds of years ago engaging in ijtihad.  Even the conservative Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya firmly believed that the gates of ijtihad were open, engaged in ijtihad, and was (and is) considered a mujtahid (one who is capable of engaging in ijtihad) of the highest order by many Muslims.  And he died in 1328 A.D., more than 130 years after the passing of Qazi Khan (the imam Spencer claims was the last mujtahid “even of the third class”).  Even those Islamic jurists (past and present) who say they believe that the “gates of ijtihad” are closed would (and do) often engage in ijtihad but simply call it something else; others would (and do) believe that it is closed in general (i.e. on most topics) but open for other issues.

Professor H. Patrick Glenn, in his book Legal Traditions of the World (pp.203-204), wrote of the so-called “gates of ijtihad” (or “door of endeavor” as he translates it):

Of course, there never was a door, and there never was a closing (that anyone could see, or hear) but everyone can instantly seize what a closed door means.  It is a silent but effective barrier, and you can never know what will be on the other side if you open it and go through.  So the proponents of the closed door argue not only that God’s will has been fulfilled in existing teaching, but that the re-opening of the door would raise fundamental questions about the future direction and even identity of Islam.  Yet the controversy within Islamic legal thought on this subject in the last century has been described as ‘violent.’  Some say the door should be re-opened, at least for the least precise of the Koranic injunctions; others say it is already open,  or even never closed…Nobody today can say whether the shari’a, in the totality of its primary sources, is immutable.

Professor M.B. Hooker writes in his book entitled Indonesian Islam: Social Change through Contemporary Fatawa (p.232):

The gate to ijtihad was opened long ago.

Perhaps a more precise statement would be that the gate of ijtihad was opened for whoever wants to view it as opened.  Conservative Muslims will view it as closed, whereas less conservative Muslims will see it as opened. Conservative Muslims who repeatedly make the claim–that “the gates of ijtihad are closed and have always been closed”–must be understood to be chastising their less conservative brethren for engaging in what they view as unacceptable modernization via ijtihad.  In other words, their claim is not stating that no Muslim is engaging in ijtihad, but only that no Muslim ought to engage in it or is properly authorized to do so (according to them).

Robert Spencer’s claim that the gates of ijtihad are closed is incredibly misleading and uninformed as it is completely misses out on the entire theme of the nineteenth century of Islamic thought, which was rampant with “modernist Islamic thinkers” who demanded an unfettered “opening” of the gates of ijtihad.  They not only successfully opened it, they smashed it, much to the chagrin of conservative Muslims.  Professor F.E. Peters mused in his book The Monotheists (V.1, p.118):

Today the gate of ijtihad seems agape rather than merely ajar.

But a Muslim said otherwise!  “Your own side” said so!  Such silliness cannot be tolerated in academia, and it is no surprise that Spencer could not tolerate a scholarly peer-review of his work.  This, then, is Spencer’s 70%, wherein he cites extremist or ultraconservative/conservative opinions and cites them as not only the most authoritative views in Islamic thought, but the only ones.  Less conservative views (especially reformist interpretations) are viewed as not being “real Islam.”  Once Spencer has discounted these reformist understandings of Islam, he then disingenuously laments about why Islam is not being reformed.

Moving on to the 30%, we see Spencer’s second argument, as follows:

2. The Qur’an is arranged from the longest to the shortest chapters…

Spencer claims that aside from the very first chapter (sura), “the Qur’an is indeed arranged longest chapter to shortest.”  This seems like an innocuous mistake, so why should we dwell on it?  Certainly it would not be worthy of a second thought, except that he is specifically berating Dinesh D’Souza for saying otherwise.  Wouldn’t Spencer have simply opened up the Quran to see if it is true or not before he responded?  Instead of doing this very simple task, he looks around for “Muslim sources” that “say the same thing”.  He cites www.islamset.com and an article published on an oil company’s magazine (written by a random anthropologist named Geert Mommersteeg).  Well, if Geert Mommersteeg the anthropologist says it, then it must be true!

The last chapter of the Quran is al-Nas, and it is 6 verses long.  It is not the shortest chapter in the Quran as Spencer claims.  Rather, the shortest chapter in the Quran is al-Kawthar, which is only 3 verses long.  The fact that “your side” said that the last chapter is the shortest doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t. There can only be one of two possibilities: Spencer did not even open the Quran to check, in which case his “scholarship” is extremely shoddy.  Or alternatively, he is guilty of academic deceit, using the “your side said it” argument to “disprove” reality.  Spencer’s audience congratulates him on the fact that “he never says something of his own, but always quotes from Muslim sources.”

An even clearer proof of the 30% (and this time not an innocuous lie at all) can be seen here, where Spencer claims that the word “dhimmi” means “guilty person.”  His entire chapter on “dhimmitude” used the 70/30 approach.  The 70% came by quoting ultraconservative interpretations of how to treat non-Muslims, and reinforcing it by citing the views of “classical” scholars (i.e. those that died hundreds of years ago).  The 30% came by slipping in the “guilty person” fib, which Spencer hoped nobody would be astute enough to notice.

Robert Spencer is no scholar, nor is his methodology scholarly.  He is a fraud, an intellectual huckster, and a sham artist.  And he’s about to be exposed.

For years, Robert Spencer has seemed quite comfortable spewing his anti-Muslim polemic uncontested, and then LoonWatch came along and shattered that comfort to bits.

Now we introduce SpencerWatch.com, a site that lays waste, once and for all, to the hate, deception, and fear-mongering that propels Spencer.

The site breaks down Spencer’s bio, agenda, and arguments, with more information than can be found anywhere on the web. It also has bios of Spencer’s “sugar daddy”, David Horowitz as well as Spencer’s “mystery man” Hugh Fitzgerald. The site’s format is a parody of JihadWatch, and in its creative imitation it also has a section on “What they say about Robert Spencer,” which is a comprehensive section on what politicians, scholars, academics, and humanitarians have said about Robert Spencer. There are also quotes directly from Robert Spencer himself, and they quite succinctly capture the loony, zealous and bigotted character that pervades everything Spencer does or says in relation to Islam.

Most importantly, the site will archive all the rebuttals (by the likes of Danios and others) of Spencer’s fraudulent books, articles, and arguments, as well as running commentary on his daily blog posts that expose the fallacy of his logic.

The world will finally have the perfect antidote to his venomous hate-blog. Make sure you read more at “Why Spencerwatch.com.”

I wonder if Connecticut is far enough away from Ground Zero for Muslims to build mosques and worship as they fit? In the tradition of Pamela Geller and her cronies here are some fine misunderstanders of Freedom of Religion.

I haven’t been the biggest fan of Michael Bloomberg, but I have to commend him for his stance on the Park 51 Cordoba Center and Mosque. It wasn’t easy.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXm_fUDfJZQ 350 300]

Michael Bloomberg delivers stirring defense of mosque

by Justin Elliot

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has emerged as the unlikely but passionate defender of the planned Muslim community center near ground zero, today traveled to Governors Island off the tip of Lower Manhattan to deliver a stirring plea for sanity in what he called “[as] important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes.”

The Daily News’ Adam Lisberg reports that Bloomberg choked up at one point as he delivered the speech surrounded by religious leaders of different faiths, with the Statue of Liberty in the background.

Rather than attack the bigotry of the opponents of the so-called “ground zero mosque,” Bloomberg made several positive arguments for building the center. He traced the struggle for religious freedom in New York and affirmed the rights of citizens to do as they please with their private property:

The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

It’s worth noting that three Jewish leaders  — Rabbi Bob Kaplan from the Jewish Community Council, Rabbi Irwin Kula from the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, and Cara Berkowitz from the UJA Federation — were present with Bloomberg during the speech, despite the Anti-Defamation League’s opposition to the project. Below is the full text. Video of the speech is here.

“We’ve come here to Governors Island to stand where the earliest settlers first set foot in New Amsterdam, and where the seeds of religious tolerance were first planted. We come here to see the inspiring symbol of liberty that more than 250 years later would greet millions of immigrants in this harbor. And we come here to state as strongly as ever, this is the freest city in the world. That’s what makes New York special and different and strong.

“Our doors are open to everyone. Everyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard and play by the rules. New York City was built by immigrants, and it’s sustained by immigrants — by people from more than 100 different countries speaking more than 200 different languages and professing every faith. And whether your parents were born here or you came here yesterday, you are a New Yorker.

“We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That’s life. And it’s part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognize that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11, 2001.

“On that day, 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn’t want us to enjoy the freedoms to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams, and to live our own lives. Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that even here — in a city that is rooted in Dutch tolerance — was hard-won over many years.

“In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue, and they were turned down. In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies, and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.

“In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion, and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780s, St. Peter’s on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site, and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center.

“This morning, the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted to extend — not to extend — landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building.

“The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

“This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies’ hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

“For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.

“On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, ‘What God do you pray to?’ (Bloomberg’s voice cracks here a little as he gets choked up.) ‘What beliefs do you hold?’

“The attack was an act of war, and our first responders defended not only our city, but our country and our constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.

“Of course, it is fair to ask the organizers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation, and in fact their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. But doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our city even closer together, and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any ways consistent with Islam.

“Muslims are as much a part of our city and our country as the people of any faith. And they are as welcome to worship in lower Manhattan as any other group. In fact, they have been worshipping at the site for better, the better part of a year, as is their right. The local community board in lower Manhattan voted overwhelmingly to support the proposal. And if it moves forward, I expect the community center and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighborhood and the entire city.

“Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure, and there is no neighborhood in this city that is off-limits to God’s love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us can attest.”

Do Muslims have equal rights?

By John Esposito

In recent weeks, Republican politics and attempts across America to block the building of mosques have underscored the impact of Islamophobia in American society.

Republican candidates have jumped on a bandwagon, appealing to racist attitudes towards Islam and Muslims as a political wedge to gain electoral votes in the coming November elections. Bogus charges in 2008 that Barack Obama was a Muslim, as if that should discredit him, is an example of an Islamophobia which is still being used as a political strategy today. This form of political hate speech was addressed by Colin Powell in his endorsement of Obama when he asked:

“Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? … I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, ”He’s a Muslim and he might be associated [with] terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.”

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, desperately seeking to recapture his national Republican leader role, tried this past week to create a bizarre national threat about the implementation of Islamic law, shariah, that doesn’t even exist: “One of the things that I am going to suggest today is a federal law which says no court anywhere in the United States under any circumstance is allowed to consider sharia as a replacement for American law. Period.” Republican Rex Duncan of Oklahoma followed suit, warning there is a “war for the survival of America,” to keep the sharia from creeping into the American court system. In California, a Tea Party Rally in protest of an Islamic Center in Temecula, encouraged protestors to bring their dogs because Muslims hate Jews, Christians, women, and dogs.

Republican politicizing of Islam and Muslims has deep roots from positions taken by their major presidential candidates (John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Guiliani) to unfounded accusations by members of Congress. In the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican candidate John McCain’s desire to credential himself with the Christian Right, whose votes, he aggressively sought, led him to embrace pastors of megachurches and televangelists with highly divisive views.

McCain received endorsements from Ron Parsley and John Hagee, prominent Christian Zionists. Parsley in his 2005 book Silent No More to warning of a ”war between Islam and Christian civilization.” Parsley decries the ”spiritual desperation” of America’s civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, and identifies Islam as an ”anti-Christ religion” predicated on ”deception.” Muhammad, he writes, ”received revelations from demons and not from the true God.” Parsley says, ”The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed. ”Jihad has come to America. If we lose the war to Islamic fascism, it will change the world as we know it. . . . It’s here. . . . They are waiting to respond as terrorist cells against this nation. It is a war between the culture of death and the culture of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” . . . Radical sects, which include about 200 million Islamics, believe they have a command from God to kill Christians and Jews, he said. . . . ”Our crisis is that half of America doesn’t know the war has started,” Hagee said. ”This is a religious war.”

When informed of Hagee’s extreme statements about Islam, McCain initially refused to disassociate himself from this pastor. It was only after the revelation of Hagee’s past anti-Catholic comments, in which he had argued that Adolf Hitler merely built on the work of the ”Roman Church,” which he called ”the Great Whore of Babylon,” that McCain finally severed his ties.

Congresswoman Sue Myrick from NC and Congressman Paul Broun from Georgia charged in an abortive campaign that the American Muslim organization CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) fostered the secret infiltration of Muslim student interns into key national security committees on Capitol Hill.

American Muslims: Myths & Realities

The taint of foreignness and terrorism continues to brushstroke American Muslim as “the other.” But what do major Gallup and Pew polls reveal about American Muslims? They are one of the most diverse communities in the world, representing 68 different countries as well as indigenous African Americans and converts. Over the past few decades, the vast majority of American Muslims have become economically and increasingly politically integrated into mainstream American society. Muslims represent men and women spanning the socioeconomic spectrum: professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers, and educators), corporate executives, small business owners, or blue-collar workers and laborers. In fact, 70 percent have a job (paid or unpaid) compared to 64 percent of Americans overall. … Muslim women report monthly household incomes more nearly equal to men’s, compared with women and men in other faith groups.

Education is a priority for many Muslims, who, after Jews, are the most educated religious community surveyed in the United States. Forty percent of Muslims have a college degree or more, compared to 29 percent of Americans overall; 31 percent are full-time students as compared to 10 percent in the general population. (See The Future of Islam, pp. 14-15)

Despite their integration as American citizens, their rights of religious freedom and civil liberties are often threatened. Today, opposition to mosque construction, in locations from NYC and Staten Island to Tennessee and California, has become not just a local but a national political issue. Plans to build an Islamic Center near the World Trade Center site have been transformed into a national referendum polarizing political and religious leaders and the media. Right-wing political commentators, politicians, hard-line Christian ministers, bloggers and some families of 9/11 victims have charged that building this Islamic Center is insensitive to 9/11 families (overlooking the fact that innocent Muslims who worked in the WTC were also victims). They characterize this cultural center as a “monument to terrorism.”

Islamophobia threatens the fabric of our American way of life

Efforts to demonize Islam and Muslims have become a political football that now threatens the first amendment rights and freedoms not only of Muslims, but indeed of all Americans. Islamophobia is fast becoming what anti-Semitism is for Judaism and Jews, rooted in hostility and intolerance towards religious and cultural beliefs and a religious or racial group.

Despite the persistent distinction by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama between the acts of terrorists and the faith of the vast majority of Muslims, what we are witnessing today is the tip of an iceberg formed post 9/11. Far right political and religious leaders and media commentators whose hate speech, like Ann Coulter’s comment:

“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” would never appear in mainstream broadcast or print media about Jews, Christians and other established ethnic and racial groups in America.

The barrage of similar tirades, like the ones below, create an atmosphere of fear and hostility that is totally unfounded, given what we know about mainstream Muslims in America.

Michael Savage, host of the The Savage Nation, warned: “I tell you right now – the largest percentage of Americans would like to see a nuclear weapon dropped on a major Arab capital. They don’t even care which one … I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity. It’s the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings.”

Rush Limbaugh, reacting to criticism of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, commented, “They’re the ones who are sick… They’re the ones who are perverted. They are the ones who are dangerous. They are the ones who are subhuman.”

Leading figures in the Christian Right were not to be outdone. Franklin Graham stated, “The God of Islam is not the same God of the Christian or the Judeo-Christian faith. It is a different God, and I believe a very evil and a very wicked religion.” On Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes, Pat Robertson warned, “This man [Muhammad] was an absolute wild-eyed fanatic. He was a robber and a brigand. And to say that these terrorists distort Islam, they’re carrying out Islam…I mean, this man was a killer. And to think that this is a peaceful religion is fraudulent.”
Impact and Implications of Islamophobia

Across America, Islamophobic hate speech and political grandstanding have painted all Muslims negatively, creating deep negative impressions among those who do not know Muslims personally. Major polling by Gallup and PEW shows that significant numbers of respondents question the loyalty of Muslim citizens and would approve policies that profile Muslims or require them to carry special identity cards. Hate speech has precipitated violent crimes against Muslims, Sikhs and other minorities of Asian and Middle Eastern descent who “look Muslim.” It has led to indiscriminate accusations against mainstream Muslim institutions (mosques, civil rights groups, political action committees, charities). Concerns for domestic security have unfortunately led to the abuse of anti-terrorism legislation, indiscriminate arrests and imprisonments of Muslims that compromise all of our civil liberties. The net result is a growing climate of suspicion and distrust.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The social cancer of Islamophobia must be recognized as unacceptable as anti-Semitism. It is a threat to the very fabric of our democratic pluralistic way of life, one that tests the mettle of our democratic principles and values. Political and religious leaders, commentators and experts must do more to counter hate speech; they must lead in safeguarding and strengthening religious pluralism and mutual respect. They must walk the fine line between distinguishing the faith of mainstream Muslims from the violence terrorists justify in the name of Islam. Blurring this distinction plays into the hands of preachers of hate (Muslim and non-Muslim, religious and political) whose rhetoric incites and demonizes, alienates and marginalizes and leads to the adoption of domestic and policies that undermine the civil liberties of Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Finally someone has taken the time to bring up loony Pamela Geller’s crazy quotes to her face. She seemed surprised and dumbfounded…again.

I really love the Alyona Show! Wasn’t that host awesome? Why is Russia TV doing a better job at challenging the Geller’s of the world then our own oblivious and slow mainstream media?

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzPTkFTx98E 350 300]

There was a plethora, a million things that the host could have brought up, all in all she did a pretty good job. How silly does Pamela look with her hypothesis that Islam inspired Hitler. She did not leave that interview feeling good about herself.

Please take some time out and thank the host, Lauren Lyster for the great job that she did. She needs encouragement and positive feedback because the haters are going to be contacting her and spitting all sorts of vile.

Contact:

U.S. bureau

Phone: + 1 202 775 2305/06
Fax: + 1 202 775 2309
E-mail: RT-US@rttv.ru

Rick Sanchez interviews the pastor behind the “burn the Koran day.”

The guy is a definite moron.

A good article from Think Progress on this whole episode.

Pastor Hosting ‘International Burn A Quran Day’: ‘We Have Nothing Against Muslims’

On September 11, 2010, the extremist evangelical Dove World Church — whose pastor, Terry Jones, has written a book called “Islam Is Of The Devil” — plans to host “International Burn A Quran Day,” when it will burn Muslims’ sacred text and encourage others across the world to do so as well. Churchmember Wayne Sapp has even posted an instructional video that explains how and why to burn the Islamic text.

CNN host Rick Sanchez invited Jones on his show yesterday to ask him about the inflammatory action. When Sanchez pressed Jones about why he would try to anger the world’s Muslims by burning their sacred text, the evangelical pastor replied, “Well, for one thing, to us, the book is not sacred,” provoking laughter from the CNN host.

Jones later went on to explain, “What we are also doing by the burning of the Quran, we’re saying stop, stop to Islam, stop to Islamic law, stop to brutality. We have nothing against Muslims, they are welcome in our country.” When Sanchez asked him how he would feel if Muslims burned the Bible, Jones admitted he wouldn’t like it but emphasized that it was his “right” to burn the Islamic text because “we live in America”:

SANCHEZ: Do you know how many Muslims there are in the world?

JONES: I think there are 1.5 billion.

SANCHEZ: Yeah. I ask you that because that’s a very big number. Why would you want to do this to 1.5 billion people by burning their most sacred book? That’s crazy.

JONES: Well, for one thing, to us, the book is not sacred.

SANCHEZ: But it is to them, it’s sacred to them. [...]

JONES: What we’re also doing by the burning of the Quran on 9/11 is we’re saying stop. Stop to Islam. Stop to Islamic law. Stop to brutality. We have nothing against Muslims, they are welcome in our country. [...]

SANCHEZ: How would you feel if a Muslim said to you, what you just said to them? I have no problem with you Mr. Christian, you’re welcome in my country, but I’m burning your Bible.

JONES: I would not like it. But it’s our right. We live in America!

The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), the nation’s largest body of evangelicals, put out a statement yesterday condemning Dove World’s actions. Quoting Thessalonians, NAE President Leith Anderson invoked the Bible’s teachings that Christians should “always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else.”

The Dove World Church has made a name for itself by engaging in a host of attention-seeking tactics to preach their hate. In the past, the congregation compelled children to wear t-shirts that bore the slogan “Islam is of the devil.” Earlier this year, they held an unsuccessful campaign to stop the election of Gainesville’s first openly gay mayor by posting a “No homo mayor” sign. Despite their failure to stop the mayor’s election, they plan to hold a protest on the steps of City Hall in August.

This is still my favorite picture of Robert Spencer.

Professional anti-Muslim bigot Robert Spencer is cashing in a huge paycheck. He makes $132,537 from blogging on JihadWatch, courtesy of the David Horowitz “Freedom Center.” That doesn’t include all the money he makes from advertisements, speaking engagements and book deals.

So, yes Islamophobes, it isn’t all altruistic defense in the name of Western Civilization that inspires your heroes to crusade against Muslims, it turns out the spoils of the Islamophobic cottage industry are quite lucrative.

David Horowitz’s Freedom Center 990 tax return,

One can make a comfortable living off of hate and bigotry. The rest of the document is quite worth seeing as well and we will expose more of it in the near future.

Spencer has quipped many times that he is not funded by big “rich” Conservatives, that he has a “modest income.” Maybe modest in relation to his boss David Horowitz who is raking in nearly half a million dollars, which makes me wonder how much is my local school teacher making?

An old, but still interesting and relevant story out of the UK.

The Jewish school where half the pupils are Muslim

It’s infant prize day at King David School, a state primary in Moseley, Birmingham. The children sit cross-legged on the floor, their parents fiddling with their video cameras. The head, Steve Langford, is wearing a Sesame Street tie.

A typical end-of-term school event, then. But at King David there’s a twist that gives it a claim to be one of the most extraordinary schools in the country: King David is a strictly Jewish school. Judaism is the only religion taught. There’s a synagogue on site. The children learn modern Hebrew – Ivrit – the language of Israel. And they celebrate Israeli independence day.

But half the 247 pupils at the 40-year-old local authority-supported school are Muslim, and apparently the Muslim parents go through all sorts of hoops, including moving into the school’s catchment area, to get their children into King David to learn Hebrew, wave Israeli flags on independence day and hang out with the people some would have us believe that they hate more than anyone in the world.

The Muslim parents, mostly devout and many of the women wearing the hijab, say they love the ethos of the school, and even the kosher school lunches, which are suitable because halal and kosher dietary rules are virtually identical. The school is also respectful to Islam, setting aside a prayer room for the children and supplying Muslim teachers during Ramadan. At Eid, the Muslim children are wished Eid Mubarak in assembly, and all year round, if they wish, can wear a kufi (hat). Amazingly, dozens of the Muslim children choose instead to wear the Jewish kipah.

At the prize morning Carol Cooper, the RE teacher, says: “Boker tov,” (Ivrit for “Good morning”).

“Good morning Mrs Cooper,” the children chant in reply. The entire school, Muslims, Jews, plus the handful of Christians and Sikhs then say the Shema, the holiest Jewish prayer, all together.

The Year Four violin club (five Muslims, two Jews) play “Little Bird, I Have Heard”. Just as many prizes are being distributed to Hussains and Hassans and Shabinas as there are to Sauls and Rebeccas and Ruths. In fact, if anything, the Muslim children have beaten the Jewish ones. Thus does the Elsie Davis Prize for Progress go to a beaming little lad called Walid, the religious studies prize to a boy called Imran wearing a kipah and the progress prizes for Hebrew, to a boy called Habib and a girl called Alia.

Times being as they are, King David doesn’t advertise its presence in a city where its pioneering multiculturalism could raise all kinds of unwelcome attention. There’s a discreet signboard outside that reveals little about the school’s unique nature. There are watchful video cameras high up on the walls, plus two electronic gates to pass through. Sadly, it is, to a significant extent, says Laurence Sharman, the (Christian) chairman of the PTA, “an undercover school”.

The Muslim parents, however, are only too keen to talk in the playground about what might be seen by some in their communities as a controversial schooling decision.

“We actually bought a flat in the catchment area for the children to come here,” says Nahid Shafiq, the mother of Zainah, four, and Hamza, nine, and wife of Mohammed, a taxi driver. “We were attracted by the high moral values of the school, and that’s what we wanted our kids to have. None of us has any problem with it being a Jewish school. Why on earth should we? Our similarities as religions and cultures are far greater and more important than our differences. It’s not even an issue.

“At the mosque, occasionally, people ask why we send the children here, but there is no antagonism whatsoever, and neither is there from anyone in our family. In fact, it was a big family decision to try and get them into King David. This is the real world. This is the way real people do things in the real world. All the violence and prejudice and problems – that’s not real, that’s just what you see on the news.”

Fawzia Ismail (the mother of Aly-Raza, nine, and Aliah, six) is equally positive. “My nephew came here and my brother showed me the school, so it’s a bit of a family tradition now. We’re very, very pleased with the school. It’s so friendly. All the kids mix and go to one another’s parties and are in and out of each other’s houses. They teach a bit about Israel, but we don’t have any problem with that. There are such similarities between our people and our societies.”

Irum Rashid (mother of Hanan, nine, and Maryam, four) says that a lot of people in Small Heath are considering moving to Moseley because of King David. “It’s a very happy school, the behaviour is fantastic, the food is great – because it’s kosher – and so are the SATs results.”

But what about learning Hebrew and the Jewish prayers? “I think it’s great. The more knowledge, the more understanding,” says one of the mothers. “They learn all they need about Islam at mosque school. Actually, the kids often sing Hebrew songs in the bath, which is a bit confusing because we speak Gujarati at home, but I think it’s great.”

The Jewish parents and teachers I speak to are just as enthusiastic. “You know, in these difficult times in the world, I think we show how things should be done. It’s really a bit of a beacon,” says one teacher, whose three children all went to King David and ended up at Oxford University.

Parent Trevor Aremband is from South Africa. “In Johannesburg, we have Jewish schools, but they’re 100 per cent Jewish, so we were a bit shocked when we first came here. But the integration works so well. It’s clearly the way to go in today’s world. My son is eight and has loads of Muslim friends.”

The most important thing, I am told repeatedly, is that the cross-cultural friendships forged at King David last a lifetime. I hear a conversation about how a Rebecca is going to fly over from the States for a Fatima’s wedding. I am told about a pair of lads, one Jewish, one Muslim, who became friends the day they started in the nursery, went to senior school together as well as to university and are now living close to one another with their wives and families and are currently on holiday together.

King David was not designed to be such a beacon of inter-faith cooperation and friendship. Founded in 1865 as The Hebrew School, it was 100 per cent Jewish until the late 1950s.

Then two things began to happen: there was a growth in the Muslim population in middle-income areas such as Moseley, and a shrinking of Britain’s Jewish community, especially outside the main centres of London and Manchester. Muslim children started coming to the school in the early 1960s, but the current position, in which they are in the majority (Jewish children comprise 35 per cent, Muslims 50 per cent, Christians, Sikhs and other, 15 per cent) is very new.

“One of the things that surprises people about this school,” says Langford, “is that it’s not an especially privileged intake. Half of our kids have English as an additional language. But the amazing thing is how well it all works. We have a new little boy here from China, whose only English a few weeks ago was to ask for the toilet. He now speaks English – and can say the Shema perfectly.

“If you gauge success, for instance, by racial incidents, which schools always have to report to the LEA, we have at the most one a term. And that can just mean some harsh words with a racial slant used in the playground. At multicultural inner city schools where I’ve taught, there will be far, far more than that, possibly one or more a week.”

In terms of SATs and Ofsted inspections, King David has also shone. It is rated as good – the second highest possible ranking – in all areas, and Ofsted made a special mention at the last inspection of the integration between children of different faiths and races. In the recent SATs results, the school also came in well above the national average in all subjects.

Steve Langford, a Warwick University economics graduate, is himself a bit of a paradox. He is Church of England on both parental sides and only became interested in Judaism when he worked in a Jewish summer camp in Massachusetts in his gap year. His interest paid off when he got a teaching job a King David. Now he is learning Ivrit at evening classes and goes to Israel for holidays.

The Rabbi of Birmingham’s Singers Hill Synagogue, one of the financial backers of King David, is proud of Steve Langford and of the school’s extraordinary interfaith record.

“King David School is amazing,” says Rabbi Tann. “The reason I think it works well is that racism is engendered entirely by adults. Children don’t have it within themselves. Their natural mode is to play happily with everyone. It’s only when adults say, ‘Don’t play with him, he’s black, or don’t have anything to do with him, he’s Muslim, that troubles begin.’

“We never have any racial or inter-faith problems at all. Not ever. In 20 years here, it’s simply never happened in any significant way. We teach that if you don’t like someone, you avoid them. Don’t play with them. Go to the other side of the playground. I believe that if more people followed the lead of King David School, we’d have a much more peaceful world.”

European Loonieness on the march. Catalan mayor believes that a mosque is “too popular” and has chosen to shut it down. I guess in Catalan Enlightenment values equal repression of religious freedom.

Catalan mayor closes ‘too popular’ mosque, tells Muslims to ‘pray at home’

(via. Islamophobia-Watch)

Memorial to Marwa Sherbini Vandalised

(via. Islamophobia-Watch)

Vandals have attacked an art project erected in honor of Marwa El-Sherbini, a pregnant headscarved Egyptian woman who was murdered in a German court room, organizers said Friday.

The Citizen.Courage group, which sponsored the display in the eastern city of Dresden, said that a few knife-shaped columns used in the open-air show had been knocked over several times and signs explaining the project were stolen.

“Citizen.Courage assumes this was a malicious, politically motivated attempt to destroy the project,” group chairman Christian Demuth said in statement. To warn against everyday racism, we will not restore the destroyed installations. But we will continue the project.” A police spokeswoman said authorities had opened an investigation.

During a trial last July, a Russian-born defendant suddenly attacked Sherbini – who was Muslim and wore a headscarf – plunging an 18 centimetre kitchen knife at least 16 times into her while she was three-months pregnant with her second child. Her son, Mustafa, three years old at the time, watched her bleed to death at the courtroom.

Sherbini’s husband, Egyptian geneticist Elwy Okaz, rushed to her aid but was also stabbed repeatedly and then shot in the leg by a police officer confused about who was attacking whom.

The 28-year-old assailant, who was sentenced to life in prison, attacked her out of revenge after she pressed charges against him for calling her a “terrorist”, “Islamist” and “whore” during a dispute over a playground swing.

The killing, and the initially muted reaction of Germany’s politicians and media, sparked outrage in Sherbini’s home country, as well as in the wider Muslim world. Many newspapers dubbed her the “veil martyr” after her headscarf.

The “18 Stabs” installation, unveiled on the first anniversary of Sherbini’s death on July 1, featured 18 knife-shaped concrete pillars erected throughout the city with signs condemning racism and xenophobic violence.

AFP, 23 July 2010

Someone Burning the Quran

Later this year, on September 11, a Florida-based Church will conduct an “International Burn a Koran Day.” Why? According to the website:

In Islam, many actions that we consider to be crimes are encouraged, condoned or sheltered under Islamic teaching and practice, though. Another reason to burn a Koran.

The ceremony is intended to honor the victims of 9/11 (some of which were Muslims, incidentally) and to stand against Islam. The Church is famous for having signs and T-shirts saying, “Islam is of the Devil.” According to the Church:

We are a New Testament, Charismatic, Non-Denominational Church that believes in the whole Bible and that we are to act in response to the word of God in order to change the times we are living in. Those times have gotten further and futher away from God; full of deception like abortion and same sex marriages.

When asked why they put up such as sign, they reply:

To expose Islam for what it is. It is a violent and oppressive religion that is trying to mascarade itself as a religion of peace, seeking to deceive our society.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups:

As of this writing, nearly 500 people have clicked “like” on the event’s webpage, which also features Photoshop images premised on the nuking of Iran and Mecca. One of these shows Mecca’s Grand Mosque full of pilgrims, with the simple tag: “Nuke It.”

At least some of the page’s supporters seem to have learned much of what they know about Islam from Fox News’ distortive hyping and conspiracy mongering regarding the case of a conservative mole at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). A person who identified herself as Fran Ingram, for example, posted a video of Fox News’ coverage of the CAIR story with the title, “No Moderate Muslims.”

This is the same church that has planned a “No Homo Mayor” protest on August 2. According to the Church’s website:

What is homosexuality? Detestable, indecent, wicked, offensive, perverted, shameful, unnatural, degrading, impure, futile, foolish, godless, dishonorable, a lie.

So, one really shouldn’t be surprised that such hate would come out of this church.

But…this planned “Burn a Koran” day is eerily reminiscent of another spate of book burnings…

Why, none other than the Nazi book burnings in the 1930s.

It seems that this church is hell-bent on seeing Islam as its enemy, judging by the many parts of its website devoted to promoting Islam as being “part of the Devil.” Now, I don’t see Islam and Christianity as being enemies of one another, quite the contrary. But, this church does.

Yet, if this Church is, according to their website, a “New Testament, Charismatic, Non-Denominational Church that believes in the whole Bible and that we are to act in response to the word of God in order to change the times we are living in,” then I wonder why they have neglected this fundamental teaching of Jesus:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. (Matthew 5:43-45)

Or, is this passage not part of the “whole Bible” in which they believe? Are they really followers of Christ?

Joe “nuke ‘em” Kaufman was on Fox and Friends saying Muslim Family Day was a terrorist sponsored event.

Fox & Friends’ latest vicious attack on Islam targets Muslim Family Day

July 20, 2010 1:48 pm ET by Justin Berrier

On what is rapidly becoming a regular feature, Fox & Friends this morning continued their incessant attack on Islam. Co-host Alisyn Camerota this morning hosted anti-Islam blogger and founder of the ironically named Americans Against Hate organization Joe Kaufman to attack Muslim Family Day at Six Flags Great Adventure. Camerota called it “insensitive” that they would host the event on September 12, “just hours after the anniversary of the September 11th attacks,” and added “but what’s even more controversial are the allegations that the Muslim group organizing the event could have been involved in financing the September 11 terror attacks.” Kaufman went further, employing what is becoming a familiar phrase among anti-Muslim bloggers: “The fact that they’re having it on September 12th, I believe they are actually spitting in the face of Americans.”

So what evidence did Kaufman give to back up Camerota’s claim that the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), who is sponsoring this event, “could have been involved in financing the September 11 terror attacks?” His first piece of evidence is a message from former ICNA President Dr. Muhammad Yunus making “a request calling on supporters to give ‘material support to groups associated with al-Qaida and the Taliban.” Here is what Yunus actually said, in an image hosted on Kaufman’s website: “Remember fellow Chechnyan Muslims in Eid Celebrations. President ICNA Dr. Muhammad Yunus has requested all Muslims around the world to include Chechnyan Muslims in their special Eid-ul-Fitr prayers. We must show our spiritual and material support for our brothers and sisters being oppressed by Russian forces.” For Kaufman, this justifies making the claim that “they may be themselves involved in financing 9/11.”

In case the name Muhammad Yunus sounds familiar, by the way, that would be Nobel Peace Prize recipient Muhammad Yunus, developer of the microcredit and microfinance concepts.

Kaufman went on to try to associate ICNA with Hamas through more tenuous ties. According to his website, in 2006 ICNA was listed as a donor to the Al-Khidmat Foundation, a Pakistani charitable organization that, according to their website, “is dedicated to the services of humanity all parts of the world without any discrimination of creed, religion and political associaltion [sic].”  They provide funding for clean water projects, diagnostic centers, orphan homes, and other community-based programs. According to Kaufman, while ICNA was one of their donors, the Al-Khidmat Foundation made a one-time donation to Hamas. Kaufman of course has no evidence that ICNA was involved in the gift, or that their money was part of the gift, or that they had anything to do whatsoever with the gift. Kaufman has been pushing this connection for years, and even the Anti-Defamation League isn’t buying it. An October 5, 2007 Dallas Daily News article reported on Kaufman’s allegations. At the time, he was protesting a different Muslim Family Day at Six Flags Over Texas. They reported (accessed via Nexis):

Mohammad Barney, president of the Dallas chapter of ICNA, said the accusations are troubling and untrue.

According to its Web site, ICNA supports Islamic culture and education while promoting justice and understanding.

“It’s disturbing that they are writing false statements like that,” said Mr. Barney. “People have the right to say whatever they want, but that doesn’t make it true.”

The Anti-Defamation League – a pro-Jewish group – seems to agree. ICNA is not listed as a threat on its Web site.

“We don’t involve ourselves in that kind of activity,” said Mark Briskman, regional director of the league, who said his group would not participate in the protest. “He made a lot of claims … without clear documentation of those claims. His statements are problematic.”

So other than making what appear to be baseless accusations about an organization sponsoring a family outing, why would Fox & Friends bring Kaufman on to attack Muslim Family Day? Well, what he lacks in expertise or insight, he makes up for in dedication. What Kaufman failed to mention is that, while Muslims may be “spitting in the faces of Americans” for holding the event on September 12, he attacked the event in 2007, when it was being held on October 14. Kaufman and Fox also ignored that the reason why the event is being held on September 12 this year –the same reason it was held on October 14 in 2007 –is that it falls on the first weekend after Ramadan ends.

In a FrontPage article titled “Fanatic Muslim Family Day” Kaufman wrote of the October 2007 event:

ICNA’s Muslim Family Day that will occur on October 14, 2007 is nothing but a charade, created to spread hatred, but veiled in a way to make the sponsoring organization look harmless. Six Flags will play host to this dangerous farce. If events, such as these, are allowed to continue, more and more Americans could become desensitized to those groups – fifth columns within our borders that wish to do us harm. It is up to those concerned to speak out against these travesties that threaten our way of life.

He may have been on to something. Looking back at previous events, I was able to find evidence of ICNA members spreading hatred. Witness the horror:

Rachel Maddow on the hysteria directed at Elena Kagan from the far right! Frank Gaffney considers Kagan an appeaser of Islam. The Washington Times ran his story accompanied with photoshopped images of Kagan in a turban.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Dennis A. Lipkin, an Israeli author, lecturer and future political hopeful thinks Israel is too socialist and wants it to be more like America. He also believes Islam is a “pyschosis” and that there is going to be a final battle between Judeo-Christians and Muslims.

Speaker wants to change Israeli policy

By CALEB SOPTELEAN/The Daily Inter Lake

Although Sept. 11, 2001, was a tragedy, “God sent the Muslim threat as a blessing because it brought together the Jews and Christians,” Lipkin said.

He said he believes many Jews will be killed leading up to the final battle, which he called “Mecca vs. Jerusalem.” The final battle is between Judeo-Christians and the Muslims, he said. “Islam is not a religion, it’s a psychosis,” he said.

“Bring them to the Lord or they’ll bring you to the sword,” he said, citing political scientist Samuel Huntington’s book, “Clash of Civilizations.”

Citing the Biblical book of Deuteronomy 11, Lipkin said God will defend Israel and its borders will run from Lebanan to Saudi Arabia.

We hear often that Muslims object too much to art or cartoons that are offensive to their religious sensibilities. In fact, Islamophobes love to highlight Islam as some unique motivator in passing laws that ban demeaning or offensive remarks or depictions about religion.

In Russia however, two artists have been convicted and fined by authorities for artwork that depicts Jesus Christ with the head of Mickey Mouse. Expect no complaints from Robert Spencer and company.(hat tip: Daniel R. Bartholomew)

Russians convicted and fined over Forbidden Art show

Andrei Yerofeyev and Yuri Samodurov had set up the Forbidden Art exhibition at the Sakharov Museum in Moscow.

The show provoked condemnation from the Russian Orthodox Church, among others, for artworks that included a depiction of Jesus Christ with the head of Mickey Mouse.

Both men were ordered to pay a fine.

The exhibition featured several images of Jesus Christ. In one painting of the crucifixion, the head of Jesus Christ was replaced by the Order of Lenin medal.

There was also a spoof ad for Coca Cola with the slogan “This is my blood” that visitors looked at through peep holes.

Mr Yerofeyev, an art expert, and Mr Samodurov, the former director of the Sakharov Museum, said they organised the exhibition to fight censorship of art in Russia.

But prosecutors opened an investigation after an ultra-nationalist Orthodox group filed a complaint against the show.

Apology

The court fined Mr Samodurov 200,000 rubles (£4,300) and Mr Yerofeyev 150,000 rubles (£3,200).

The trial began in April 2009 and was fiercely criticised by rights activists and artists.

Last week, 13 renowned Russian artists published an open letter to President Dimitry Medvedev, asking him to stop the trial. They said a guilty verdict would be a sentence “for the whole of Russian contemporary art”.

Amnesty International issued a statement last week, saying a guilty verdict against the curators would “further undermine freedom of expression in Russia”.

In letter send to the Russian Orthodox Church last month, Mr Yerofeyev apologised if the show unintentionally offended Christians.

‘Provocation’

But the Council of the People, the group that brought the complaint, defended the legal action.

A representative of the organisation, Oleg Kassin, told the AFP news agency that he had been disgusted by the exhibition which contained “anti-Christian” images.

“If you like expressing yourself freely, do it at home, invite some close friends,” Mr Kassin said.

“But from the moment that such an exhibition takes place in a public space, and especially if it contains insults, it’s no longer art but a provocation,” he added.

Mr Samodurov has been convicted of inciting religious hatred before. He was fined in 2005 for an exhibition called Caution: Religion! at the Sakharov Museum.

The latest development in the face veil ban legislation in France.

French MPs vote to ban Islamic full veil in public

France’s lower house of parliament has overwhelmingly approved a bill that would ban wearing the Islamic full veil in public.

There were 335 votes for the bill and only one against in the 557-seat National Assembly.

It must now be ratified by the Senate in September to become law.

The ban has strong public support but critics point out that only a tiny minority of French Muslims wear the full veil.

Many of the opposition Socialists, who originally wanted the ban limited only to public buildings, abstained from voting after coming under pressure from feminist supporters of the bill.

President Nicolas Sarkozy has backed the ban as part of a wider debate on French identity but critics say the government is pandering to far-right voters.

After the vote, Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said it was a victory for democracy and for French values.

“Values of freedom against all the oppressions which try to humiliate individuals; values of equality between men and women, against those who push for inequality and injustice.”

The vote is being closely watched in other countries, the BBC’s Christian Fraser reports from the French capital Paris.

Spain and Belgium are debating similar legislation, and with such large-scale immigration in the past 20 or 30 years, identity has become a popular theme across Europe, our correspondent says.

‘Open-faced democracy’

The bill would make it illegal to wear garments such as the niqab or burka, which incorporate a full-face veil, anywhere in public.

It envisages fines of 150 euros (£119) for women who break the law and 30,000 euros and a one-year jail term for men who force their wives to wear the burka.

The niqab and burka are widely seen in France as threats to women’s rights and the secular nature of the state.

“Democracy thrives when it is open-faced,” Ms Alliot-Marie told the National Assembly when she presented the bill last week.

She stressed the bill, which makes no reference to Islam or veils, was not aimed at “stigmatising or singling out a religion”.

Berengere Poletti, an MP from Mr Sarkozy’s centre-right UMP party, said women in full veils wore “a sign of alienation on their faces” and had to be “liberated”.

Andre Gerin of the Communist opposition compared the veil to “a walking coffin, a muzzle”.

‘Fear of foreigners’

The bill is also seen as a touchstone for the Sarkozy administration’s policy of integration. It is grappling with disaffected immigrant communities as it seeks to prevent a repeat of the mass unrest of 2005 on run-down French housing estates.

There are estimated to be only about 2,000 women wearing the full veil in France though the bill is opposed by many of France’s five million Muslims.

Mohammed Moussaoui, the head of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, a government advisory body, has supported taking steps to discourage women from wearing the full veil but has said a legal ban would stigmatise a vulnerable group.

Jean Glavany, a Socialist MP, said he opposed the ban on the grounds that it was “nothing more than the fear of those who are different, who come from abroad, who aren’t like us, who don’t share our values”.

The Council of State, France’s highest administrative body, warned in March that the law could be found unconstitutional.

If the bill passes the Senate in September, it will be sent immediately to France’s Constitutional Council watchdog for a ruling.

Another challenge is possible at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where decisions are binding.

In another development, a French businessman, Rachid Nekkaz, said he would set up a 1m-euro fund to help women pay fines imposed under the new law.

A ban in the street would violate constitutional principles, he argued.

United States

Jon Stewart is one of the last men out there with the moral courage to do the kind of reporting the mainstream media just won’t do. A beautiful segment, that skewers Fox News, and the likes of Steven Emerson and Robert Spencer. Spencer no doubt will be howling at the moon about Stewart being a dhimmi. Nothing makes him more upset than being portrayed like the clown that he is.

Enjoy!

We don’t want to make big hay over errors even from the likes of Robert Spencer, the pseudo-Scholar who swears he is “never wrong.” We just like to take a hammer to those assumptions being parlayed as facts and reduce them to rubble. Loonwatch, over and over again has done just that to Spencer’s work and we will continue to do it until Spencer acknowledges his folly.

We wrote a piece on one more instance of Robert Spencer getting basic information wrong and then trying to pass it off as fact. He claimed Pope Pius XII was a victim of misinformation and that he was in fact “memorialized in Yad Veshem.” Tipped by one of our readers we pointed out the easy to find out fact that Pius XII was not memorialized in Yad Vashem, in fact he has constantly been rejected.

Spencer, originally wrote:

The record of Pope Pius XII is controversial, but there has been a good deal of misinformation publicized about it. In reality, he helped save many hundreds of thousands of Jews and was memorialized at Yad Veshem.

(Click here for a snapshot of the original comment by Spencer)

One of Spencer’s readers, Raqnu, who the JihadWatchers figured was a Muslim Taqqiyah artist because his name is an anagram for Quran (only problem is it also seems to be a name for the Spirit of Justice in the Zend Avesta) asked Spencer what he thought about our claim. Spencer replied,

As far as I know Pius XII is not honored at Yad Veshem.

(Click here for a snapshot of the reply to Raqnu from Spencer)

A clear contradiction to his early comment. Yet, Spencer doesn’t have the guts to acknowledge his mistake and he especially is not going to acknowledge a mistake when it is pointed out to him by Loonwatch. C’mon Spencer where is our hat tip?

Interestingly, Spencer went back to his original comment, and without telling anyone changed what he had written, so instead of saying,

The record of Pope Pius XII is controversial, but there has been a good deal of misinformation publicized about it. In reality, he helped save many hundreds of thousands of Jews and was memorialized at Yad Veshem.

It now says,

The record of Pope Pius XII is controversial, but there has been a good deal of misinformation publicized about it. In reality, he helped save many hundreds of thousands of Jews. The campaign to blacken his name began much later.

(Click here for a snapshot of Spencer’s quiet attempt at covering up his error)

Not a word about how he was propelled by Loonwatch’s article to change his comment. Not even a disclaimer signifying “Update” as most professional bloggers would react in this scenario. Instead, Robert Spencer keeps trudging along hoping no one will notice his error. To do so would concede that he is wrong, and that would bruise his fragile ego. More worrisome for him, it would open up the door in his and his minions’ brains (if it already hasn’t) that maybe Loonwatch is right about his other arguments.

For a paid polemicist that is a scary proposition.

One of the spies

Many in the Islamophobosphere claim that Muslims are secret Taqiyya imposters, seeking to “Islamize” America under the guise of living “ordinary lives.” In his The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Robert Spencer wrote:

When Shi’ite Muslims were persecuted by Sunnis, they developed the doctrine of taqiyya, or concealment: They could lie about what they believed, denying aspects of their faith that were offensive to Sunnis…Closely related to this is the doctrine of kitman, or mental reservation, which is telling the truth, but not the whole truth, with an intention to mislead…Remember that the next time you see a Muslim spokesman on television professing his friendship with non-Muslim Americans and his loyalty to the United States. Of course, he may be telling the truth–but he may not be telling the whole truth or he may be just lying. (p.79-81)

In fact, last Fall, four actual U.S. Representatives in the House accused the Council on American Islamic Relations of infiltrating Capitol Hill “with undercover spies.” Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia said:

If an organization is connected to or supports terrorists [and] is running influence operations or planting spies in key national security-related offices, I think this needs to be made known. So I join my colleagues here today in calling for action.

Their “evidence” was a book written by P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry entitled Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America. The book is based on Chris Gaubatz, the son of David Gaubatz, posing as a Muslim convert to inflitrate and expose CAIR as “part of an organized crime network.”

Yet, last Sunday, 10 people were arrested on charges of being part of a deep-cover Russian spy network. These people lived like “ordinary Americans while secretly reporting to Moscow.” The Washington Post reports:

Details that emerged Tuesday about the alleged spies’ lives added to the mystery of a network that prosecutors say extended from Manhattan to Seattle and the heart of the Washington area. Though utterly unremarkable to their neighbors, the suspects allegedly buried stashes of money and wrote messages in invisible ink as they sought to collect tidbits about U.S. policy and secrets.

Other details about the spies include:

Indeed, the alleged agents lived in the suburbs, went to parties and rooted for American sports teams. Eight men and women, authorities say, were “paired off” by Russian intelligence as married couples, and at least three of those four couples had children in the United States.

Two of those arrested in Arlington, a couple known as Michael Zottoli and Patricia Mills, took their young son on walks each evening in Seattle, where they lived until last year, neighbors said. Zottoli worked for an investment firm; Mills was a stay-at-home mom. The family lived in a neat and carefully decorated fifth-floor apartment.

“How would you ever think somebody next door would be involved in something like this?” said John Morrison, a neighbor. “You wouldn’t think a spy would care about what color curtains or about making things look nice.”

Mikhail Semenko, the third Arlington resident, helped neighbors at his apartment complex dig out after last winter’s massive snowstorms. On his Facebook page, he lists a New Jersey Devils hockey player as one of his “likes.”

“He’s warm, not calculating,” said Slava Shirokov, a co-owner of the Virginia travel agency where Semenko worked. “It’s straight from a movie.”

Those familiar with the case say that the details revealed in court documents do indeed read like an old-fashioned spy novel. According to prosecutors, the spies’ real purpose was to:

…infiltrate academic, policymaking and government-connected circles. Semenko, for example, often attended events sponsored by embassies and nongovernmental organizations.

Donald Howard Heathfield, an international business consultant who lived with his “wife,” Tracey Lee Ann Foley, and their two teenage sons in Cambridge, Mass., sought membership in more than 30 professional, academic and business associations — including one linked to the Department of Homeland Security, according to his page on LinkedIn.

More direct hints emerge in court documents. When agents covertly searched Foley’s bank safety deposit box in 2001, they found a series of photographic negatives of her. The name of the company that produced the negatives had been excised on all but one. Authorities identified the producer of the final negative as TACMA, a Soviet film company, court documents said.

Last Fall, we had actual Members of Congress accuse CAIR of implanting “spies” in the U.S. Congress, while there were individuals living as “ordinary Americans” but actually spying for a foreign government. These people were actually doing what many in the Islamophobe sphere accuse ordinary American Muslims of doing: posing as “ordinary Americans” but being something else entirely. Why, that’s Taqiyya!

But, what if these alleged Russian spies were Muslim? Think of the absolute hysteria of the Islamophobes: they would be claiming that they were right all along about Muslims; they would be calling on investigations and racial profiling of all American Muslims; they would be screaming Taqiyya! from the tops of their lungs.

Meanwhile, there were actual spies living in America who were recently caught. And the Islamophobes are silent…because the arrested spies are not Mooslims. Forgive my Canadian: pathetic, eh?

This is still my favorite picture of Robert Spencer.

A while back Danios wrote one of his most popular pieces debunking Robert Spencer’s work. It dealt with a chapter from Spencer’s, Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and was titled The Church’s Doctrine of Perpetual Servitude. Spencer wrote a reply that basically skirted around the subject and in effect dug himself into a bigger hole then he was in previously. Danios replied to Spencer who has remained mum on the debate since then, essentially conceding to Danios and Loonwatch.

One of our readers, Paterfamilias, wrote to inform us that Spencer’s reply contained more factual errors. Spencer claimed that Pope Pius XII, though “controversial” was “memorialized at Yad Vashem.”

The record of Pope Pius XII is controversial, but there has been a good deal of misinformation publicized about it. In reality, he helped save many hundreds of thousands of Jews and was memorialized at Yad Veshem.

Oh really, a lot of misinformation? So much for Robert Spencer’s research abilities. He could have easily done a Google search to check the veracity of such a claim, but for a paid polemicist with an ax to grind it’s probably considered a waste of time.

The following article, Pope Pius XII and Yad Vashem, from Wikipedia makes it clear that not only is Pope Pius XII not memorialized at Yad Vashem, his candidacy has been repeatedly rejected for decades.

Yad Vashem, the state of Israel‘s official Holocaust memorial, has generally been critical of Pope Pius XII, the pope during The Holocaust. For decades, Pius XII has been nominated unsuccessfully for recognition as Righteous Among the Nations, an honor Yad Vashem confers on non-Jews who saved Jewish lives during the Holocaust altruistically and at risk to their own lives.

Yad Vashem affixes the following captions to two pictures of Pius XII in both English and Hebrew,

In 1933, when he was Secretary of the Vatican State, he was active in obtaining a Concordat with the German regime to preserve the Church’s rights in Germany, even if this meant recognizing the Nazi racist regime. When he was elected Pope in 1939, he shelved a letter against racism and anti-Semitism that his predecessor had prepared. Even when reports about the murder of Jews reached the Vatican, the Pope did not protest either verbally or in writing. In December 1942, he abstained from signing the Allied declaration condemning the extermination of the Jews. When Jews were deported from Rome to Auschwitz, the Pope did not intervene. The Pope maintained his neutral position throughout the war, with the exception of appeals to the rulers of Hungary and Slovakia towards its end. His silence and the absence of guidelines obliged Churchmen throughout Europe to decide on their own how to react.

Pretty damning stuff.

Yad Vashem’s official website has this to say about Pope Pius XII,

The controversy about Pius XII and the Holocaust is still open. At the end of his visit to Israel in 1964, Pope Paul VI came to Pius’s defense in Jerusalem. On March 12, 1979, Pope John Paul II met with Jewish leaders in Rome and said: “I am happy to evoke in your presence today the dedicated and effective work of my predecessor Pius XII on behalf of the Jewish people.” In a meeting with American Jewish leaders in September 1987 in Miami, John Paul II again recalled the positive attitude of Pius XII. However, his passivity in the face of the Holocaust remains a controversial subject.

How could Robert Spencer get a fact so brutally wrong? Maybe one day Yad Vashem will find Pope Pius XII legitimate for memorializing, but as of now the controversy surrounding his actions and inaction during the Holocaust continue to make the attempts of various Pope’s and advocates unsuccessful.

Robert Spencer should think twice before undertaking a task of disinformation, it just doesn’t fly anymore.

What do people think of this story? Haredim demand respect for Muslim grave site, and demand the contractor to pour a layer of concrete before they start building. Is it enough to pour concrete before they build or should it be left untouched? This also brings up the case of the Simon Wiesenthal Center which is building a “Museum of tolerance” over an ancient and historic Muslim graveyard.

Oh look a Muslim terrorist has struck again in Europe, this time against the Greek “counter-terrorism” minister…except…wait…this just in…the terrorist was likely from the rebel guerilla movement Revolutionary Struggle. Looks like the 99.6% of terrorist attacks has struck again.

Bomb kills aide to Greek counter-terrorism minister

A bomb blast at the offices of Greece’s public order ministry in Athens has killed a close aide to the minister responsible for counter-terrorism.

Police said the victim had opened a parcel bomb.

The explosion happened only metres away from the office of the minister, Michalis Chryssohoidis, who was unhurt.

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou said the bombing was a terrorist attack. So far no group has said it was beind the bomb.

‘Cowardly murderers’

The blast was so powerful that some in the heavily guarded building thought it had been struck by an earthquake, the BBC’s Malcolm Brabant in Athens reports.

The victim was later identified as Giorgos Vassilakis, a 50-year-old father of two.

Visibly shaken, Mr Chryssohoidis said he had “lost a valuable and beloved colleague”.

“We cannot be scared and we cannot be terrorised. These cowardly murderers will be brought to justice.”

The minister added that the parcel had been meant for him.

Mr Papandreou also branded the bombers “cowards”, adding: “They will get the response that they deserve not only from the state but also from all of society. The terrorists will not reach their objective.”

Greek terrorism expert Dr Athanasios Drougas told the BBC that the bomb was probably the work of Revolutionary Struggle, the country’s most deadly active guerilla group.

In recent months police have made major breakthroughs against Revolutionary Struggle and another militant organisation, Conspiracy of Fire.

Dr Drougas said Revolutionary Struggle was sending a message that its was not defeated and was still capable of striking at the heart of the Greek government.

The fearmongering continues, courtesy of a Christian Action Network (CAN) advertisement. (hat tip: Abdullah)

Some take offense to billboard warning drivers about Islam

By Jackie Faye

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) – A billboard along Interstate 26 is catching a lot of eyes, and viewers are calling our newsroom about it. Some think it’s offensive, and others just want to know what it means.

On a stretch of highway from Orangeburg to Columbia, one sees advertisement on billboards scattered along the side of the road. But this billboard stands out, reading “Islam Rising Be Warned.”

“I think it is exciting hate and fear,” said Jennifer Bynum. “You know there are terrorists out there, but they are not all out there amongst us.”

The Islamic Center of Columbia has been on Gervais Street for close to 30 years. Habeeb Abdullah has been a member since the beginning, and says there is nothing to fear over the sign.

“I am not going to judge what they meant, I’m just going to take it as-is,” said Abdullah. “They say Islam is on the rise — which is true, it is on the rise — but there is nothing to be afraid of from Islam.”

If you look closely at the sign, it sends you to a website paid for by the Christian Action Network. We emailed the group for a comment, and they requested we watch their video first.

The video shows protests of people holding signs reading “Be prepared for the real holocaust” and shows the deadly attacks of 9/11. It also shows a man saying “I have been ordered by Allah to fight against people until they testify there is no god but Allah.”

Abdullah maintains there is no correlation between his religion and the video or the billboard.

“If Islam is on the rise, I think American people are informed enough to know what is right and what is wrong,” Abdullah said. “So if they are accepting Islam, there has to be a reason.”

We emailed the Christian action network again after watching the video, per their request. Their response was, “If you still have questions after watching the trailer then you need to watch the full documentary.”

The billboard is owned by Revelation, which rents out billboards all over. The cost depends on size and location, and can run from $500 to $2,000.

Sharron Angle calls for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and a "return" to Biblical Law.

Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle has made some very interesting statements about what could happen if the ballot box fails:

“You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. In fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this, this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? And I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”

Source: Washington Post

“The nation is arming. What are they arming for, if it isn’t that they are so distrustful of their government? They’re afraid they’ll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways? That’s why I look at this as almost an imperative. If we don’t win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?”

Speaking to Reno Gazette Journal on May 30, 2010:

“I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This is not for someone who’s in the military. This is not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical…Well it’s to defend ourselves. And you know, I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.”

Source: Huffington Post

Just to remind our dear readers, the Second Amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So, is this incitement to armed insurrection? Is this a call to violence if “we don’t win at the ballot box”? What are the “Second Amendment remedies”?

Sharron Angle’s “stealth jihad” campaign against the U.S. government is waged on behalf of the Christian not Islamic flag.  She doesn’t want to replace our secular and liberal form of government with Sharia law, but Biblical Law.  If you think of Sharia as stoning adulterers, guess which book that comes from?  It’s from none other than the Bible.  (Of course, it would be unfair to link stoning–found in the Bible–to Sharron Angle, since her interpretation of Biblical Law may not entail this, but this never stops Christian right-wingers from saying every Muslim who believes in Sharia advocates a return to stoning.)

Anyways, here’s more about Angle’s background:

Sharron Angle, Republican nominee for U.S. Senate from Nevada was, in the 1990s, a member of the Independent American Party, the Nevada affiliate of the Constitution Party.  The Constitution Party is not merely a political party that supports the Constitution, but rather a party that promotes a very specific interpretation of the Constitution: based on founder Howard Phillips’ Christian Reconstruction.

The Constitution Party’s platform advocates “returning” American law to its “foundations” in “Biblical Law.” The notion that the First Amendment’s religion clauses provide for a separation of church and state is rejected…They contend that the founders always understood the U.S. to be a Christian nation founded on biblical law.

source: ReligionDispatches.org

Can you imagine the reaction if she had been a Muslim? What if a Muslim candidate for public office – any public office, even if it is Chief Librarian (or the prestigious position of Miss America) – calls for “Second Amendment remedies”? What if a Muslim candidate for public office said, “If we don’t win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?”  What if Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison said that, or any of the “army of Muslim spy interns” supposedly trying to topple our government?  And what if these Muslims advocating violent overthrow believed in “returning” American law to Sharia-based law?  Do you think that such a Muslim would have a semblance of a political career left?

I will tell you the answer: people would be saying that such a Muslim candidate should be sent to jail for incitement to murder and terrorism; that Muslim candidate would be demonized to no end.  At minimum, he/she would be forced to resign, amid a fury of calls for his/her head.  And Spencer, Geller, and Co. would be screaming “Stealth Jihad!” “Taqiyya!” “Dhimmitude!” until the cows…no, I’m sorry, the pigs come home.

This incident highlights the fact that right wing extremism–of which extremist Christians comprise a large chunk of–remains a grave threat to this country just as radical Islam does.  Right-wing extremism is certainly more of a threat to our liberal way of life than the imaginary “stealth jihad” that loyal Muslim-American citizens are continually accused of–a fact that holds true even if it doesn’t conform to the narrative imagined by right wing Islamophobes.  We also wonder: why are Muslim-Americans always skeptically cross-examined by Christian right-wingers about their loyalty to this country, but meanwhile these same Christian right-wingers openly call for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government?

Chuck Schumer

Helen Thomas made an indefensible and impulsive comment that she subsequently apologized for, and now is being branded an “anti-Semite” and the “scum of the earth.” Not only has she apologized but she has essentially been forced to retire.

It is sad that her whole career will be overshadowed by one statement made by a questionable guy sticking a camera in her face. She let her emotions get the best of her, something we can all relate to, but I don’t agree with those who are impugning from her comment that she implied Jews should be ethnically cleansed.

However, insert Chuck Schumer into the equation, a life long advocate of the belief, “Israel is right no matter what,” who was speaking at an Orthodox Union dinner in which he said ‘we should strangle the Gazans economically until they moderate.’

Think Progress:

This past Wednesday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) delivered a wide-ranging speech at an Orthodox Union event in Washington, D.C. The senator’s lecture touched on areas such as Iran’s nuclear program, the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and several domestic policy issues.

During one point of his speech, Schumer turned his attention to the situation in Gaza. He told the audience that the “Palestinian people still don’t believe in the Jewish state, in a two-state solution,” and also that “they don’t believe in the Torah, in David.” He went on to say “you have to force them to say Israel is here to stay.”

New York’s senior senator explained that the current Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip — which is causing a humanitarian crisis there — is not only justified because it keeps weapons out of the Palestinian territory, but also because it shows the Palestinians living there that “when there’s some moderation and cooperation, they can have an economic advancement.” Summing up his feelings, Schumer emphasized the need to “to strangle them economically until they see that’s not the way to go, makes sense”

Read the whole story: Think Progress

Outrageous isn’t it? But do you think Chuck Schumer will apologize let alone be forced into retirement? The truth is that anti-Palestinian remarks will not get you into trouble, in fact they might boost your votes depending on where you live.

An interesting aside here is that Schumer got something else wrong as well. He stated that Palestinians don’t believe in “David or the Torah.” This statement was obviously directed at Palestinian Muslims who make up the majority of Palestinians (he can’t be referring to Christian Palestinians who obviously believe in the Old Testament).

Unfortunately the ignorance of our elected officials know no bounds. Schumer doesn’t know much about Islam, and probably hasn’t read the Quran, because if he did he would realize that David, or in Arabic Dawood, is one of the most revered prophets of Islam. The Quran also calls on Muslims to affirm belief in the Torah and all Heavenly revealed books from God, to do otherwise is contrary to basic Islamic creed and puts one outside the pale of Islam.

If he was following recent news he would also have noted that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas quite controversially stated his belief in the legitimacy of Jewish claims to Israel deriving from the Quran,

Reports of Abbas’s remarks were met with seeming disbelief in the Arab media and led an Al Jazeera reporter later that day to ask him if the reports were correct. Abbas replied, “Jews are there, and when you read the Holy Koran you have it there. That’s what I said.”

Cenk Uygur had some excellent commentary on the hypocritical double standards that this situation highlights,

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks#p/u/11/-Vr3zCy8V2U 350 300]

Bill Maher on the other hand seems to think that Israel is besieged in the press. Here he goes toe to toe with Oliver Stone.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdaNCjp1ni0&feature=player_embedded 350 300]

What do you think?

A great article from one of the foremost analysts of racism. (hat tip: iSherif)

Fighting anti-Muslim racism: an interview with A. Sivanandan

By IRR News Team

IRR News spoke to one of the foremost analysts of racism and Black struggle as to how to meet the contemporary challenge of anti-Muslim racism.

Should we look at Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism today as something new and apart, or as a continuation of the racism we have known in the UK?

A. Sivanandan: Every racism is different and every racism is the same.

Western culture, because it is a culture of conquest and subjugation, is impregnated with racist and nativist/anti-foreigner ideas. Such ideas develop into a fully-fledged ideology when harnessed to an economic or political programme such as slavery or apartheid. But they can still become a material social force, justifying discrimination and engendering racial violence, in areas and times of economic hardship when there is competition for jobs, housing etc between indigenous and foreign or immigrant workers

It is ‘natural’ for indigenous, poor, white people who have to compete for housing, employment, social services etc to be hostile to those who look like the obvious cause of their hardship, marked out by colour, foreignness or cultural difference. When such hostility is lent justification by government policies (domestic and foreign) and harnessed by political parties for electoral gain, racial ideas become firmed into a quasi-ideology which, in turn, feeds and justifies popular racism.

The components of racism are always the same – cultural, political, economic and social. But the shift from an industrial to a post-industrial society gives the components of racism a different weightage.

The racism of industrial capitalism was connected to exploitation – slavery, colonialism, indenture, immigration. Racism was imbricated in labour exploitation. The economic factor was dominant in the way racism changed and was shaped and became functional. In post-industrial capitalism, where the exploitation of labour in the old sense is concentrated in the periphery; the political and cultural components are dominant. And ideas, in an Information Society dominated by the media, become material irrespective of the economic factor. There is, in other words, very little disjuncture between the racist idea and the racist act; they virtually flow into each other.

Are you saying that before we even look at contemporary Islamophobia, per se, we have to look at the way that the balance within racism itself has changed over the last thirty years or so?

A. Sivanandan: Yes. By and large, under industrial capitalism, racist views, filtered down through slavery and colonialism, were prevalent mostly among the working class. But in post-industrial society racial ideas run through the whole of society and culture. For, globalisation and the market have sundered the ethos of the nation state and opened the door to nativism.

Let me explain. Globalisation has shifted the role of the state from welfare to market. The welfare state was guided by principles of social equality, which made for social cohesion. The market state is guided by the principles of wealth creation and individual success, which fractures society, fragments communities, and reifies personal relationships. There is nothing organic now to cohere the nation. Hence the imposition from above of British values and programmes of social cohesion to hold the nation together – aided now by the politics of fear and the ‘enemy within’, creating in the process a faux nationalism evident in everything from foreign policy to oaths of allegiance in our town halls.

How does this then relate to how we tackle Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism, are they really the same thing? Can the terms be used interchangeably?

A. Sivanandan: Yes and no. Yes, Islamophobia is implicated in anti-Muslim racism; but no, the one does not equate the other. I see Islamophobia as a term relating to a set of ideas which indicate an antipathy to Islam – which can range from the crude and direct demonisation we find in the tabloids to the intellectual sophistry we associate with people like Amis. Whereas anti-Muslim racism is the acting out of that antipathy, that prejudice – in violent attacks on the street or, when institutionalised in the state apparatus, in the impact of the anti-terror laws, in racial profiling by the police, and so on.

The distinction is important because Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism reside by and large in two different constituencies – and each has to be fought on its own ‘merits’. Islamophobia, in its most sophisticated form, is the province of middle-class opinion formers, erstwhile liberals, defenders of the true liberal faith against the encroachments of illiberal Islam, as defined by them, the ‘liberati’. Anti-Muslim racism is the province of the working class and is no different from past working-class racisms. Except that now it finds its justification in Islamophobia – suitably translated into the vernacular of stereotype and scapegoat by the tabloids, the carriers of racist culture. Racism is now justified not on notions of racial superiority but on notions of Islamic ‘barbarity’. And religion is racialised.

Hence the confusion that fighting Islamophobic discourse is tantamount to fighting anti-Muslim racism. But, as I have said, Islamophobia is not the cause of anti-Muslim racism but its rationale. Religion is not race. And unless we unravel race from religion and employ different strategies for the different sites of struggle, while still keeping their relationship in view, we will be rendered ineffective on both sites. Conversely, to let the fight against Islamophobia (ideological/theoretical) dictate the fight against anti-Muslim racism (strategic/practical) is to intellectualise both and undermine action. To concentrate on the anti-racist aspect of struggle without missing out on the fight against Islamophobia, however, is not only to be able to draw on the long history of that struggle but also to gain the support of allies that were made on its way, especially – at a time of British National Party (BNP) resurgence – the anti-fascists. Such solidarity is also important to make sure that the liberati’s use of the term Islamofascism does not let the real fascism off the hook.

There are other reasons, too, why we need to focus on the struggle against anti-Muslim racism. Firstly, because anti-Muslim racism has become institutionalised through the government’s ‘Muslim wars’, its anti-terror laws, its use of stop and search and its failure to curb the media’s excesses. (And institutional racism, as we know, reproduces itself at other levels of society.) Second, these in turn breed a culture of fear and suspicion and give groups such as the BNP and the English Defence League a hold on public opinion. Third, the government’s elevation of ‘British values’ (as opposed to universal values) to which we should all aspire – and therefore to British culture – confirms the popular view that Muslim values and Muslim culture are raw and threatening. And this gives a fillip to nativism which, in the hands of the Right, turns into the rough and tumble patriotism of the street.

Do you feel that the extreme Right in the UK has shifted, like other rightwing groups in Europe, towards recruiting on the basis of Islamophobia?

A. Sivanandan: In the past, the extreme Right’s fascist ideology was per se reprehensible to all sectors of society in a democracy. Today, the classlessness of Islamophobia, ie the fact that it runs through the whole of society, from the liberati to the illiterati, and is made respectable by government policies, has given groups like the BNP a new constituency within ‘middle England’ on whom they work for electoral purposes. Hence its two faces: one electoral and the other populist – and its bipolar tactics of putting on a respectable front for the first and a militant front for the second. And the politics of fear engages both constituencies. The middle-England constituency is frightened by the immolation of its culture and values, and the working-class constituency is frightened by the spectre of aliens taking their jobs, homes, shops, and marrying their children.

So are you really saying that activists should be just addressing anti-Muslim racism as it affects poor communities on the streets?

A. Sivanandan: At the risk of repeating myself, we have to fight both Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism when and where they are acted out. But the fights are at two different levels which need two different strategies and weapons. We need to dismantle and critique the intellectual arguments being put forward by Islamophobia’s intellectual protagonists and attack the media at every turn for popularising and disseminating that discourse. And we have simultaneously to take up the other fight, the fight against Anti-Muslim racism, be that at the level of government policy or the level of hate crime on the street.

Why it is important to understand the two fights as different but connected is because of the danger that, in confining ourselves to the religious aspect of the fight against Islamophobia without taking on its political translation on the street, we would once again descend into the inward-looking politics of identity.

Any Asian could be a Muslim. Any Asian wearing a headscarf or a beard must be a Muslim. Every Muslim is a fundamentalist. Every fundamentalist is a terrorist. We are in danger of creating a culture of suspicion and distrust not only between communities but within communities, indeed within families and between individuals – which can hardly count for British values or democracy!

We did a piece on the statistics of European terrorism quite some time ago, and now more evidence that “terror” from Muslims in Europe is an overblown threat. (hat tip: iSherif)

Terror attacks decrease in Europe

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Fewer than 300 acts of terrorism were registered in Europe last year and only one was an attack from an Islamist group, with most of them committed by separatist organisations in Spain and France, EU’s police agency Europol reports.

A total of 294 terrorist acts were reported in EU member states in 2009, representing a 33 percent drop compared to the previous year and half the number of attacks registered in 2007, Europol said Wednesday (28 April).

id='beacon_059d0009d0' style='position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px;
visibility: hidden;'> src='http://ads.euobserver.com/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=357&campaignid=236&zoneid=4&loc=http%3A%2F%2Feuobserver.com%2F9%2F29968&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loonwatch.com%2Fwp-admin%2Fedit-comments.php&fb=1&cb=059d0009d0'
width='0' height='0' alt='' style='width: 0px; height: 0px;' />