Look, the FBI found somebody that they didn’t have to give weapons to but was actually amassing weapons by himself, in order to kill Blacks, Jews and others.

What if they were Muslim? Wouldn’t there be a mention of terrorism? The article below conspicuously leaves out the word “terrorism” and “terrorist” completely. (h/t: MuslimIQ)

FBI: Neo-Nazi amassed 40,000 rounds, 18 weapons in plot to kill black and Jewish leaders

By Arturo Garcia (Raw Story)

A convicted felon and alleged neo-Nazi amassed 40,000 rounds of ammunition and planned to kill black and Jewish community leaders in Detroit as part of a “hit list,” WXYZ-TV reported on Thursday.

Federal authorities said this week that a search of 47-year-old federal suspect Richard Schmidt’s home revealed the list and apparent plans to kill Scott Kaufman, executive director of the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Detroit, and Rev. Wendell Anthony, president of the Detroit chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).

“You have to realize it is the world we live in,” said Kaufman after being notified of the list. “There are people who don’t like us and would just as soon have us not exist, but you can’t dwell on it.”

According to NBC News, Schmidt was indicted in January 2013 on federal charges of possessing firearms, ammunition and body armor, all of which violated his parole. Schmidt was released from prison in 2003, after 13 years of incarceration in Ohio following a homicide conviction for shooting and killing a man during a traffic stop. Schmidt also wounded two others during that attack.

Investigators then found 18 weapons inside Schmidt’s home in Ohio in December 2012, including various types of shotguns and high-caliber rifles, including two different AR-15 assault weapons.

U.S. Attorney Steven M. Dettelbach, who represents Ohio’s northern district, said investigators have concluded that Schmidt acquired his arsenal at gun shows or via private firearms sales, which currently do not require a background check.

“It’s scary,” Dettelback said about the amount of weaponry found at the suspect’s home, adding that while he would say where Schmidt bought the guns if he knew, “It’s that sitting here today as a senior federal law enforcement official in northern Ohio, I can’t say.”

Schmidt, who owns a sporting good store, is also accused of selling knock-offs of popular brands like Nike, Reebok and Louis Vuitton.

Watch WXYZ’s report on Schmidt’s alleged “kill list,” aired Thursday night, below.

by Inconnu and Garibaldi

The following article deals specifically with the claim that the Quran teaches that Jews are “apes and pigs.” There is an important fuller discussion to be had on the relationship between Islam and Judaism and Muslims and Jews, a history which has seen its fair share of antagonism and hostility but that is an article for another time.

Amongst self-declared “Islam expert” Robert Spencer‘s many theories about Islam is his claim of “Qur’anic anti-Semitism.” He uses contemporary examples of Muslim maledicta, usually from MEMRI, an organization uniformly devoted to such a cause, then superimposes the modern concept of antisemitism through the prism of said maledicta onto basic texts of Islam. Hoping to link in the mind of the reader a narrative of an inherent, nefarious, transhistorical “Islamic” antisemitism akin to or greater than Christian European antisemitism.

This is just patently false, as Norman Stillman has pointed out in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Jews have, in the basic texts of Islam,

“none of the demonic qualities attributed to them in medieval Chrsitian literature, neither is there anything comparable to the overwhelming preoccupation with Jews and Judaism (except perhaps in the narratives on Muhammad’s encounters with Medinan Jewry) in Muslim traditional literature…Mediaeval Muslim theologians devoted only a very small part of their polemics against other religions and doctrines to Judaism. There is nothing in Islam comparable in quantity and rarely in sheer vitriol to the Adversus Judaeos literature of the Church.”

None other than Orientalist Bernard Lewis confirms this in his book The Jews of Islam:

‘For Muslims, [hostility to the Jews] is not part of the birth pangs of their religion, as it is for Christians. It is rather the usual attitude of the dominant to the subordinate, of the majority to the minority, without that additional theological and therefore psychological dimension that gives Christian anti-semitism its unique and special character.’

Undoubtedly there are Muslim clerics and leaders today, some very prominent, who have or do engage in antisemitism (there are also many voices who oppose antisemitism).

There should however be a resistance to conflate, the way proponents of the so-called “New Antisemitism” often do, such antisemitism with those who espouse legitimate criticism of the state of Israel and Zionism.

Of particular note has been the contribution of self-described Islamiyoon (Islamists) over the years who have engaged in crass and vitriolic antisemitism. Initially, early thinkers who influenced Islamism sought an accommodation with Zionism. The example of Rashid Rida, an influential turn of the century Muslim scholar, activist and thinker is useful. Initially,

“Rida called on Arabs to take an example from the resurrection of the Jewish umma. Although he had perceived the Zionists’ objectives in Palestine before many others, he nevertheless called, until 1914, for an accomadation with them so as to benefit from the European Jews’ wealth and knowledge, on the condition that they not try to take over Palestine or establish their state there.

….

Rida’s discourse on the Jews underwent a sharp change in the late 1920s. The long, two-part article that he published on the Palestinian question after the 1929 riots gave a new twist to elements already present in his more circumstantial article of the previous year; this time, he accentuated the anti-Jewish line. Rida drew on various sources, combining assertions that reflected the Muslim tradition that was the most hostile to Jews (whereas he had only recently availed himself of the most pro-Jewish strand in that tradition) with shameless borrowings from the most hackneyed commonplaces of the European anti-Semitism of the day. Among these commonplaces was the fantasy of the all-powerful Jewish conspiracy made popular by the worldwide dissemination of the famous Russian anti-Semitic forgery known as the Protocals of the Elders of Zion, which Rida did not cite, although it plainly had a pervasive influence on his text. (Arabs and the Holocaust, p.111-113)

Recently, President Mohamed Morsi, who has already been criticized for being silent in the face of antisemitic statements was exposed for engaging in hateful and bigoted rhetoric that is all too common amongst some Islamists.

Video of him from pre-Arab Spring days shows him calling Jews “apes and pigs.” Morsi claims he was taken out-of-context and that he really believes in respect for all religions and peoples, statements which we find rather convenient now. The reality is too many like him have contributed to misperceptions of Islam and Muslims, providing Islamophobes with fodder to assert and propagate falsities in their war on Islam and Muslims.

This however doesn’t let Islamophobes off the hook.

Take Robert Spencer’s recent post on Morsi’s screeds, he writes,

When video came out a couple of weeks ago in which he called Jews “apes and pigs” (which the Qur’an calls them in three places, 2:63-65, 5:59-60, and 7:166), Morsi said he was quoted “out of context.” (emphasis mine)

Spencer claims the Qur’an says Jews are apes and pigs in three places, implying “all Jews” are referred to this way. This is a lie. Let’s examine Spencer’s claims in detail. Here are the verses he cites:

AND LO! We accepted your solemn pledge, raising Mount Sinai high above you, [and saying;] “Hold fast with [all your] strength unto what We have vouchsafed you, and bear in mind all that is therein, so that you might remain conscious of God!” And you turned away after that-! And had it not been for God’s favour upon you and His grace, you would surely have found yourselves among the lost. For you are well aware of those from among you who profaned the Sabbath, whereupon We said unto them, “Be as apes despicable!” and set them up as a warning example for their time and for all times to come, as well as an admonition to all who are conscious of God. (2:63-66)

Say: “O followers of earlier revelation! Do you find fault with us for no other reason than that we believe in God [alone], and in that which He has bestowed from on high upon us as well as that which He has bestowed aforetime? – or [is it only] because most of you are iniquitous?” Say: “Shall I tell you who, in the sight of God, deserves a yet worse retribution than these? They whom God rejected and whom He condemned, and whom He turned into apes and swine because they worshipped the powers of evil: these are yet worse in station, and farther astray from the right path [than the mockers].” (5:59-60)

And then, when they disdainfully persisted in doing what they had been forbidden to do, We said unto them: “Be as apes despicable!” (7:166)

The verses in question reference a specific story in which a community of Jews who lived by the sea — which according to several early Islamic exegeses is the town of Eilat — had people who fished on the Sabbath and deliberately broke the law, for according to Jewish law, all work was forbidden on the Sabbath. In punishment for this breach of the law, God transformed the Sabbath-breakers into apes; only 5:60 speaks of God transforming some of the sabbath breaking Jews into swine.

Yet, note that the verses in question do not say, “All Jews are apes and pigs.” They do not say, “All Jews are descended from apes and pigs.” They do not say “All Jews are either apes or pigs.” Do some Muslims say so? Absolutely. Do they cite the above verses as “evidence” for their claims? Absolutely. Does that mean that the verses in question say so? Absolutely not.

In fact, Robert Spencer himself has admitted in the past that these verses do not apply to all Jews. Spencer in 2010:

In traditional Islamic theology these passages have not been considered to apply to all Jews. The classic Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir, whose commentary is widely distributed and respected among Muslims today, quotes earlier authorities saying that “those who violated the sanctity of the Sabbath were turned into monkeys, then they perished without offspring,” and that they “only lived on the earth for three days, for no transformed person ever lives more than three days.”

But such interpretations, of which Spencer is clearly aware does not prevent him from projecting the antisemitic statements of some Muslims, such as Morsi’s upon the entire religion of Islam itself when it is convenient for him to do so–as if he suffers from amnesia about what he has written in the past!

Our response is: How do the antisemitic views of some Muslims constitute “proof” of Quranic or Islamic antisemitism? Is the fact that some Catholics hold Jews to be “enemies of the Church,” “Christ killers,” etc. “proof” of inherent New Testament or Christian antisemitism? Does the fact that some Jews hold the view that “racism” is a value that “originated in the Torah,” or that “non-Jews exist to serve Jews” proof of Judaism’s racism and xenophobia against non-Jews? No, of course not! Then, how can that same logic apply to Islam?

Clearly, the verses in question speak of a specific group of Jews, the Sabbath-breakers, who were transfigured into apes and swine. There is no general smear of Jews as such in the Qur’an. So why say so Robert?

But wait! There’s more! Spencer never mentions that in the classical commentaries on these verses, there is a debate whether the “transformation” was literal or metaphorical. According to Muhammad Asad, an early 20th Century convert to Islam who penned a translation and commentary of the Qur’an, many early commentators believed it was a metaphorical transformation:

According to Zamakhshari and Razi, the expression “We said unto them” is here synonymous with “We decreed with regard to them” – God’s “saying” being in this case a metonym for a manifestation of His will. As for the substance of God’s decree, “Be as apes despicable”, the famous tabii Mujahid explains it thus: “(Only) their hearts were transformed, that is, they were not (really) transformed into apes: this is but a metaphor (mathal) coined by God with regard to them, similar to the metaphor of ‘the ass carrying books’ (62:5)” (Tabari, in his commentary on 2:65; also Manar I, 343; VI, 448; and IX, 379). A similar explanation is given by Raghib.

As we can see classical authorities are not in consensus on the issue of Jewish sabbath breakers being transformed into apes and pigs, some hold it to be a literal transformation while others metaphorical.

Regardless, however, the fact remains: the Qur’an does not say that the Jews are “apes and swine” despite the rantings of Morsi or the pseudo-expertise of Islamophobes such as Robert Spencer.

*Both the Stillman and Lewis quotes were retrieved from Gilbert Achcar’s “The Arabs and the Holocaust.”

About that Muslims Harass Christian & Jewish Neighbors, Police Refuse to Help Story

by Sheila Musaji

This particular strategy of the Islamophobia network is getting tiresome.

Pamela Geller posted #MyJihad in Paris: Muslims Harass, Attack Christian and Jewish Neighbors, Police Refuse to Help in which she published an email she received from an anonymous “Atlas reader” in Paris.

We are supposed to take her word for it that this individual’s statement is true.  Geller, of course, will take the word of anyone who has anything negative to say about Islam and Muslims.

What is the story that Geller must share with the world?

An anonymous reader of her site asks Pamela to help her “tell the world about what is going on here so that people will fight these horrible pigs.”  [the “pigs” she refers to are Muslims.] In her story she complains about the French “socialist government”,  altercations with Muslim neighbors, and bizarre incidents that she is aware of (like Muslims forcing a Jewish child to eat pork or they would kill her parents).

This would be laughable if it wasn’t for the fact that there are individuals who do take Geller’s postings seriously.  This is the sort of incoherent story you get from people walking the streets and talking to themselves.

Not content with putting this story out on her site, Geller also tweeted it out using the #MyJihad hashtag, as part of her ongoing effort to undermine that positive effort by Muslims to take back the term from both Muslim extremists and Islamophobes.  And, her followers followed suit, tweeting and re-tweeting this “story” using the #MyJihad hashtag.

Interestingly, the two groups who share extremists views about Islam – the Muslim extremists and the Islamophobes - both attacked the campaign.  Geller & Spencer accused the #MyJihad campaign of inspiring a Chicago bus threat.  They also began churning out articles with the hashtag #MyJihad in their titles, and then tweeting the titles of those articles and encouraging others to re-tweet, in an attempt to take over the #MyJihad hashtag by overwhelming it with hateful messages.  Many of the articles they have come up with have been, even by their standards, disgraceful.  Here are just a few of these false hate pieces from the past few days:  (Don’t worry, the links take you to responses, not the original)  #MyJihad: Egyptian Cleric Warns Christian Women: If You Don’t Wear a Veil You’ll Be Raped - #MyJihad: Muslim cleric tells converts to bury their Christian parents as if they were dead dogs - #MyJihad in Serbia: Kosovo Muslims destroy Serbian Orthodox monastery.  In addition to these new lies, they are recycling many of their old lies in tweets including the hashtag, e.g. #MyJihad 270 million victims of over a millennium of jihadi wars - #MyJihad 17,000+ “Islamic terrorist” attacks since 9/11, etc.   See the RESOURCES FOR DEALING WITH ISLAMOPHOBIA SUMMARY section below for links to responses to many of these current and previous hateful claims.

Based on Geller’s past performance it is difficult to believe that any sane person could take her rantings seriously, but they do.  I prefer to save myself the trouble and just use the Pamela Geller:  Shrieking Harpy Rant Generator to get my dose of Geller “humor” for the day.

Why does this story sound so familiar?

Geller, and her partner Robert Spencer have proven hundreds of times that they have a Tenuous Grasp of the Concept of “Truth Telling”.

One of the many previous lies they spread was very similar to this current one.  In that case Geller posted an article titled “Hate Crime” which shared an email from a reader who had supposedly been harassed by Muslims in her neighborhood and was unable to get law enforcement or elected officials to do anything about it.

In that case, the writer calling herself “Danusha (Redacted) PhD” claimed a Muslim man accosted her and “impeded” her ability to walk down the street, and that Muslims regularly mock her, and one even hit her with his SUV.

When the article was originally posted it included this introduction to the email by Geller:  “The hypocrisy loooms [sic] large. Here’s a letter I thought I should share with you. I expect the gutless congressman who witnessed his Muslim constituents dancing on 9/11/01 will do nothing but hide beneath his desk. If this continues — auxiliary law enforcement will be necessary.”

Subsequently the original email from the “victim” was removed from Geller’s site, as was Geller’s lead in to the article, and replaced with an almost incoherent rant. In that rant, Geller claimed that ” I’ve removed the letter from this post because of threats to its author. The incredible evil that is standard operating procedure for those on the left led them to try to identify the author, and effectively target her for retribution. Thus I removed the letter. Imagine: this woman lives in fear every day, and the response to this violation of her basic human rights was an attempt to out her and put her life in jeopardy. That’s what we’re dealing with.” 

An article I wrote at the time exposing this nonsense, notes that according to Charles Johnson

… the individual who wrote this letter is Danusha Goska and he links to an email sent to a site called VDARE from this person in 2008.  That email complained about “Hispanic noise pollution” in her neighborhood.  In that email she included a copy of a letter that she had sent to her local mayor and claims that her complaints have gone unanswered.  The VDare site posts a note at the bottom of this post saying Goska, a teacher and Democrat, previously wrote to us about her experience with National Public Radio. with a link to this previous letter.

That link takes you to an email she sent which included an “essay” she had sent to NPR.  At the bottom of the “essay” is this:  Goska, a writer, teacher and Ph.D. from Indiana University does “manual labor to make ends meet.” She submitted this essay to NPR (e-mail) which rejected it.

Johnson also turned up a strange film review posted by a person named Danusha Goska.

In a simple google search I turned up a number of articles including this one - Islam and Terror: Some Thoughts after 9/11 by Danusha V. Goska, PhD.

She seems, like Geller to be focused on anti-Muslim rabble rousing.  Geller, rather than explain that she had been taken in by an email from a seemingly unstable person, instead pulled the email, and substituted a rant that still managed to make it seem as if the information contained in that original email was accurate.

This pattern of making outrageous claims based on no evidence at all, and then if caught out, attempting to conceal the evidence is a pattern.

Robert Spencer is yet to condemn this. Does this mean that Catholicism is inherently predisposed to antisemitism? Of course we don’t think so, but those opposed to the second Vatican such as Spencer are silent on the matter.

What if they were Muslim? (h/t: JD)

Bernard Fellay, Head Of Traditionalist Catholic Sect, Says Jews Are ‘Enemies Of The Church’

(HuffingtonPost)

The head of a controversial Catholic sect says that Jews are “enemies of the Church,” but the sect has denied any anti-Semitic intentions.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, declared Jews “enemies of the Church” during a talk that aired on a Canadian radio station, the Catholic News Agency recently reported. Fellay’s remarks took place on Dec. 28 at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Chapel in New Hamburg, Ontario.

Fellay, discussing negotiations with the Vatican in 2012 concerning the Society’s future, said the following during the address: “Who, during that time, was the most opposed that the Church would recognize the Society? The enemies of the Church. The Jews, the Masons, the Modernists.”

Fellay said Jewish leaders’ support of the Second Vatican Council “shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the Church’s,” according to the Catholic Register.

The Second Vatican Council modernized the Catholic Church in the 1960s and is the reason the Society of St. Pius X split from the main body and was founded in 1970 as part of the Traditionalist Catholic movement. Some traditionalists blame Jews for the reforms that took place during the Vatican II council sessions, notes the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

The Society of St. Pius X posted a press release in response to Fellay’s “enemies of the Church” comment, denying any anti-Semitic connotation. The release reads that “enemies” refers to “any group or religious sect which opposes the mission of the Catholic Church and her efforts to fulfill it: the salvation of souls.”

The release continued thus:

By referring to the Jews, Bishop Fellay’s comment was aimed at the leaders of Jewish organizations, and not the Jewish people, as is being implied by journalists. Accordingly the Society of St. Pius X denounces the repeated false accusations of anti-Semitism or hate speech made in an attempt to silence its message.

This is not the first time one of the sect’s members has spoken out against Jews.

In 1985, one of the Society’s founders, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, also identifiedenemies of the faith as “Jews, Communists and Freemasons,” according to JTA. In addition, traditionalist Bishop Richard Williamson has denied that the Nazis used gas chambers to kill Jews in the Holocaust and that no more than 200,000 to 300,000 Jews died during WWII.

Jesuit Priest Rev. James Martin expressed his disapproval of Fellay’s comment and of the Society in general. “I cannot imagine how any further talks can continue with the group,” Martin told The Huffington Post. “Theologians have been silenced for dissenting in lesser ways from official church teaching.”

(Via IslamophobiaToday.com)

By Samuel Burke and Claire Calzonetti, CNN, December 11th, 2012

Aasif Mandvi’s job title as a TV correspondent is both a complete joke and utterly realistic: Senior Muslim Correspondent.

He works for “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” the highly rated comedic news program that, at its best, can be even more influential than real American newscasts. And his work under that title, as well as countless others (“Senior Middle East Correspondent,” “Senior Asian Correspondent”) has propelled him to prominence.

But the comedian is no longer just going for laughs. In his new play, “Disgraced,” Mandvi takes a serious look at the tensions between Muslims, Jews and Christians that linger in post-9/11 United States.

The show breaks just about every taboo about the interface between East and West culture. Seated in an American living room, Muslim, Jewish, black and female characters discuss social issues like racial profiling and Islam in America.

“The identity of Islam and the way Islam is viewed by the West has changed after 9/11,” Mandvi said.

He was inspired to do the play by its writer, Ayad Akhtar, who sent Mandvi a draft two years ago.

“I read it and I thought, wow, this is an amazing play and very rare are there roles for brown actors and especially Muslim American actors that sort of deal with the identity issue in this way and in such a sophisticated, nuanced way as this play does,” Mandvi said.

The issues discussed in the play, Mandvi said, are universal – not unique to Muslims. “Jews, Christians and other people have come up to me and said, I identify with this Muslim character on stage and his own identification with his tribal identity. And the fact is that, you know, the way we were raised and the things we were taught shape us.”

Mandvi, who was born in India and raised in England and the United States, will continue his satirical reports for the The Daily Show.

Over the years he has made it clear on the show that he is not afraid to use his ethnicity to make a joke, and a point. But is there any line he will not cross?

“I’ll exploit the brownness as far as I can,” he joked with Amanpour. “Sometimes, through satire, I get to sit on that fence between cultures, between East and West and comment on it and just by virtue of the fact that I am ethnically who I am.”

Original post: Daily Show correspondent takes on Muslim stereotypes

by Ilisha

Just in time for the American elections, the loons have at long last unearthed the smoking gun. A poem authored by President Barack HUSSEIN Obama when he was nineteen years old, on the eve of a trip to–gasp!–the MUSLIM nation of Pakistan, provides irrefutable “proof” he’s not only a secret Muslim, but a rabid hater of Christians and Jews:

UNDERGROUND
Under water grottos, caverns
Filled with apes
That eat figs.
Stepping on the figs
That the apes
Eat, they crunch.
The apes howl, bare
Their fangs, dance,
Tumble in the
Rushing water,
Musty, wet pelts
Glistening in the blue.

Are you outraged yet? Isn’t it obvious Obama’s heart is brimming with hate, hate, hate?

If you can’t see it, you must have become lost in the murky depths of pro-Muslim propaganda spewed daily by the Muslim Brotherhood-loving liberal media. Fortunately, Jack Cashill has decoded this monstrous tribute to jihad on a far right hate site with an (unintentionally?) ironic name, the American Thinker:

…both of the poem’s most conspicuous symbols, apes and figs, are mentioned in the Qur’an.  Middle Eastern scholar Bernard Lewis has argued that although Muslims were relatively tolerant of Jews, there are at least three passages in the Qur’an in which Jews are denounced as “apes.”  In sura 5.60, for instance, the Quran reads, “[Worse is he] whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine.”  “Swine” is apparently the epithet of choice for Christians, but “Underground” is not about swine.  It is about apes — belligerent, boastful apes at that.

In 1981, when Obama submitted this poem, he was plotting his forthcoming summer trip to Pakistan, a Muslim country.  By all accounts, given his education in Indonesia and his choice of friends in America, he was a knowledgeable fellow-traveler in the world of Islam.  By 1981, too, Israel had emerged as a source of evil in the eyes of both radical Muslims and the international left.

The reference to “figs” strengthens O’Hagan’s case that the “apes” refer to Jews, or at least to Israeli Jews.  He cites the 95^th sura of the Quran, “At-Tin,” which translates as “fig” or “fig tree.”  It reads in part: “[I Swear] By the fig and [by] the olive/ And [I Swear by] Mount Sinai/ And [I Swear by] this secure land [of the city of Makkah].”…

Read the rest here.

Plainly, Obama is a crafty secret Muslim who, even as a teen, could obscure his true beliefs in poetic symbolism. Did you notice he also mentioned “caverns”? Cavern is another word for “cave,” and everyone knows the Prophet Muhammad used to spend time in a cave named Hira, where Muslims believe he received his first revelation. There’s even a chapter in the Qur’an entitled, The Cave.

Still not convinced? Well the poem also mentioned water, and the Qur’an mentions water too. Repeatedly. And the poem has words, and the Qur’an has words too! This is apparently the kind of “thoughtful” analysis that impresses the loons.

Sarcasm aside, the “apes and pigs” theme  (not “apes and figs”–that’s a refreshing new twist) is a common talking point for anti-Muslim loons, based on a distorted interpretation of verses in the Qu’ran. Sadly, a tiny minority of radical Muslims do use the verse in question to justify their prejudices.

Mainstream Muslims interpret the verses quite differently. Aziz Poonawalla’s City of Brass blog has provided a clear, concise explanation of verses in question in response to a previous “analysis” advanced by the ant-Muslim hate site, MEMRI:

Jews are NOT apes and pigs

I was unsurprised to read in NRO’s The Corner the entry by Kathryn Jean-Lopez about the MEMRI “analysis” which purports to demonstrate that the Qur’an calls Jews “apes and pigs”.

The verse she is referring to is 5:60 - while I do not deny that the verse has been deliberately misused to justify calling Jews “apes and pigs” – it has nothing to do with Jews. This is a group of ayats that are a kind of dialouge. It is confusing to follow but here is the general gist:

5:57 - (addressing Muslims) – do not choose as *guardians* [LW ed: or allies] (actual word used) those people who follow earlier Revelations but not Islam (ie, Jews and Christians), and people who are outright disbelievers (in Allah). The issue of Guardian goes back to 5:55, which has an extensive history in and of itself, as relates to Ali. [LW ed: See our discussion of the issue of wilaya, or 'friendship, patronage and alliance.' Also see the translation of this verse.]

5:58 - Some ignorant Jews and Christians mock you (as a muslim) and your Azaan (call to prayer) because they do not understand what you are doing (they do not see it as a form of worship). This should not dissuade you from doing your actions (duties to Allah).(personal comment: I have been ridiculed while praying in parking lots. My wife and I used to go to movies before Baby arrived, and sometimes the only time we could catch a show was right around sunset. So we would do our obligatory prayers in the parking lot. To be honest, we are reluctant to do that nowadays, but this verse demands that we persevere despite that paranoia)

5:59 - addressing Jews and Christians – “is the only reason you hate us (Muslims) because we believe in Allah, and the revelations that came before (which you also believe in)? Is this because most of you do not follow your own scriptures as well as we follow them (the same scriptures)? at this point the Muslim understands that they are inheritors to the same scriptures that Jews and Christians follow. However, they are a target of ridicule by some in these groups for adherence to these scriptures.

5:60 - addressing Muslims again – Do you want to know who is worse (than such ignorant Jews and Christians. Note, not ALL, see 5:58)? Those who are worse are those who Allah has cursed, had wrath upon, had damned to be apes and swine.. etc . these are far, far worse than Jews or Christians (who mock the azaan, etc.)

5:61 - The group that is discussed in 5:60 is here revealed to be those who say (on the surface) I believe in Allah but who actually do not, and seek to cause dissent and turmoil within the community of believers.

Clearly, the average Jew or Christian who follows their own scriptures, or who at least does not ridicule Muslim belief, is clearly not the target of 5:59, let alone 5:60. …

The article is worth reading in full here. The notion Jews are equated with apes and pigs is a distortion, but adding Christians into the mix and claiming Muslims view them as “swine” is even more of a stretch. It seems this new twist was added to broaden the scope of alleged hate and maximize outrage with the loons’ gullible target audience.

Just in case there are any “counter jihadists” reading this article, I’ve conducted my own analysis of Mitt Romney’s poetry, just for you. From Mother Jones:

To wit, “Baha“:

Who’s got your camera, though,

Who?

Who let the dog’s [sic] out,

Who? Who?

And here’s a bonus volley (condensed and edited), via Emily Friedman. “Unleashed”:

Oh, this is great—

Little bacon pieces keep falling out.

Today this is me,

Just raw and unleashed.

Dogs and bacon? The symbolism is clear. GOP candidate Willard Mitt Romney (who I’ve affectionately dubbed “Mitney”) is telling the world he is not a secret Muslim, and therefore he is deserving of the presidency. Savvy loons choose Mitt.

It’s amazing any credible site would publish such idiocy and present this laughable “analysis” of Obama’s poetry. What it proves is not that Obama is a secret Muslim, but that “counter jihadists” are sinking deeper into complete absurdity, and that their blind hatred is eclipsed only by their stunning ignorance.

Related stories:

More Evidence: Obama is a Secret Mooslim

This is What You Can Expect From a Mitt Romney Presidency: Islamophobia

One Out of Six Americans Believe Obama Is a Muslim

On Loonwatch we cover Islamophobia, which of course is our main focus, but there is also a need to highlight those voices within the world of Islam who condemn extremism and hatred against the non-Muslim “other.” Acts of extremism and fundamentalism gone awry in Muslim majority countries by groups with an absolutist vision are used by those in the anti-Muslim movement as a vehicle to unjustifiably justify Islamophobia.

Anti-Loon Ahmed Rehab takes on a serious question about the generalizations that some in the Muslim world engage in regarding Jews.

Rehab’s article centers on a video of President Morsi attending a prayer in which an Imam asks God to “deal with the Jews.” MEMRI which produced the video and translated it, actually mistranslated the Arabic wording, “Allah alayka bi-l Yahud” (“God, deal with the Jews”) as “destroy the Jews.” Rehab notes that while MEMRI’s translation is faulty and problematic, there is still a bigger issue, the perpetuation of generalizations and harmful stereotypes, that in his opinion is a betrayal of Islamic values. (h/t: Fred)

Unholy Prayer: “Jews” Are Not Our Enemy

by Ahmed Rehab (via. The American Muslim)

My daily fight against Islamophobia in the US has only served to increase my aversion to all forms of bigotry, including and especially anti-Semitism, and to increase my appreciation for what I consider to be a singular fight against all forms of bigotry.

Certainly, and not unlike any other group on the planet, both Jews and Muslims have their share of bad apples.

The problem is with generalizations.

There are no qualms about criticism and condemnations leveled against Muslim terrorism – that is, acts of terror committed by Muslims. If anything, as a practicing Muslim, I am doubly offended when the perpetrator of an act of terrorism is Muslim, once for the victims and another for the notion that the perpetrator purports to act or speak in the name of my faith.

Likewise, I have no qualms against legitimate criticism leveled against the government of Israel for acts of aggression or policies of oppression conducted against Palestinians. As a global citizen committed to social justice for all, I am offended by those acts and policies.

But the problem at the root of both Islamophobic and anti-Semitic expression is the same: generalization. We must collectively resist this apparent temptation to level scorn against “Muslims” or against “Jews” when confronting actions or words by a subset of either population. This is both intellectually lazy and morally wrong.

It is for that reason that I was particularly appalled to come across a video of a “prayer” delivered by an Imam in an Egyptian mosque, attended by President Mohammed Morsi and other high government officials, in which the Imam asked God to “deal with the Jews, and disperse their ranks.” (Memri mistranslated the Arabic to state “destroy the Jews” instead of “deal with the Jews.” The Arabic states “Allahoma Alaika bel Yahood,” not “Allahoma Dammer el Yahood”).

Such prayers are not entirely uncommon in Egyptian mosques (which I have often frequented) and presumably Arab mosques in general.

I object to such prayers as morally offensive and wholly un-Islamic. I have made it a point to complain to the Imam the few times I have chanced upon such language from the pulpit, and I have not been the only one in line offering a challenge to the Imam.

I understand the argument that might be offered by the Imam or those who tolerate such wording. I understand that it is rooted in the recent political and historical context rather than in a timeless disdain for our Semitic cousins. I understand that for many Imams and for much of their congregation, they say “Jews” as shorthand for the modern state of Israel, and specifically the unjust policies of Israel. I understand that this is partially so because the state of Israel refers to itself as the “Jewish State” and renders Jewish ancestry as the sole criteria for automatic citizenship, regardless of where one is born. I also understand that many of those who casually say “amen” to such a prayer, as Morsi did, would not mistreat a Jewish person they happen to meet in person simply because he or she is Jewish and that the prayer is impersonal. (Morsi was recently criticized locally for calling Israeli President Shimon Peres “a great friend”).

I understand the arguments, but I don’t accept them: I repeat that such prayers are morally offensive and wholly un-Islamic. I feel this way for several reasons:

First, recent political or historical events should not change our principles as Muslims which are immutable over time and space. Namely, the principle that we do not inflict injustice against any individual or group of individuals, in this case “the Jews”, even if by words alone, no matter the circumstances. There are many Jews who are not citizens of Israel. Additionally, there are many Jews who are citizens of Israel but disagree with the unjust actions or policies inflicted on others by their government. Furthermore, while there are Jews who are involved in policies of apartheid and those who are heavily involved in the rising Islamophobia movement in the US, there are Jews who are in the forefront of fighting for justice for the Palestinians and those who are at the forefront of combating Islamophobia domestically. Their stances have been nothing short of heroic. So to lump all Jews as personally guilty for the specific actions of any government, including the government of Israel, or any group, is neither just nor rational.

Second, recent political or historical events are transient by nature, rooted to a specific time and place, not inherent over time and space. Such a political conflict did not exist in the past, and could well be resolved in the future. It is therefore problematic to offer a prayer that targets “Jews” in such an inherent manner.

Consider this for example: twice upon a time, the Muslim world provided safe haven for Jews who were facing tremendous persecution in Europe, once in Muslim Spain, and once in the Ottoman empire. Or consider that Salahuddin (Saladin), the Muslim warrior highly respected by both Muslims and non-Muslim historians alike for how he conducted resistance against the European Crusades employed the great Jewish philosopher and physician Maimonides as his personal physician. In fact, Maimonides spent much of his career moving from one Muslim princely court to another. Maimonides, who is considered one of the most influential Jewish Talmudic Rabbis of all time and the man behind the famous “Oath of Maimonides” (the oath my Egyptian-American Muslim friend Dr. Hesham Hassaballaopted to take when he became a physician) would not have recognized this Latinized version of his name, but would have answered to Abū ʿImrān Mūsā bin Maimūn bin ʿUbaidallāh al-Qurṭubī. He wore a Turban and spoke Arabic. But what can I say, historical revisionism is a constant feature of both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. Such a prayer would not have been conceivable at the mosques of those eras. Such is our legacy as Muslims, and a prayer offered against “Jews” today runs in shameful contradiction to our own honorable legacy.

As another example, consider that we Muslims are given permission to eat food made by Jews as “Halal,” and to marry Jews. From a theological and historical perspective, Jews are seen as “people of the book” and the closest religious group to Muslims. How could we then tolerate an argument that suddenly renders “Jews” as the inherent enemy – and by virtue of their collective faith not individual actions. It is indeed the individual actions by those who seek to harm us that we must deem as antagonistic and not entire faith identities. The Qur’an states “La tahmil Wazeratan Wizr Okhra” or “A soul does not bear the burden of another soul.” In fact, we ought to condemn such actions with the same vigor regardless of the identity of the perpetrator, equally so if they were Muslim or Jewish. Are the actions of Saddam Hussein or Bashar Al Assad any less offensive to us because they are Muslim (even if nominally so)? Are the actions of the recent bomber in Pakistan who blew himself up by a Mosque of all places, during Eid of all times, any less offensive to us because he is Muslim? Absolutely not. Should we then exhort God to “deal with the Muslims and disperse their ranks” as a result of the actions of these Muslims against our communities?

Third, it is my view that even when we succeed in avoiding generalizations and properly scope our prayers to those who harm us, that even then, it is better to pray for their guidance rather than their damnation. That is how I have personally chosen to word my prayers when giving Friday sermons, in the belief that it is more in line with the spirit and worldview of Islam – one that aspires to correct the sin rather than destroy the sinner, as the ultimate goal of any form of Jihad (struggle against the odds).

And so, I cannot but publicly register my contempt for such a “prayer” as both anti-Semitic and un-Islamic.

While we must not compromise on seeking peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict – which I believe like many is premised on justice for the oppressed Palestinians – we must never allow the Arab-Israeli conflict, regardless of how strongly we feel about it, to undermine the principles of our faith or cause us to be morally compromised by the wholesale vilification of Jews. Nor should we ever allow, in the typical myopic shortsightedness employed by Islamophobes, that a political conflict be dragged out into a religious war between respected global faiths.

I call on President Morsi to refrain from partaking in such prayers, and better yet, to actively push back against them as both morally repugnant and fundamentally un-Islamic. I pledge to utilize my networks of activism in Egypt to relay the message.
Please visit Ahmed Rehab’s site Mindful of Dreams

We received a deluge of tips about the survey headed by Tel Aviv University Prof. Camil Fuchs, the results of which conclude that a majority of Israeli Jews support an apartheid regime in Israel.

What if they were Muslim?

Survey: Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime in Israel

by Gideon Levy (Haaretz)

Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank.

A majority also explicitly favors discrimination against the state’s Arab citizens, a survey shows.

The survey, conducted by Dialog on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, exposes anti-Arab, ultra-nationalist views espoused by a majority of Israeli Jews. The survey was commissioned by the Yisraela Goldblum Fund and is based on a sample of 503 interviewees.

The questions were written by a group of academia-based peace and civil rights activists. Dialog is headed by Tel Aviv University Prof. Camil Fuchs.

The majority of the Jewish public, 59 percent, wants preference for Jews over Arabs in admission to jobs in government ministries. Almost half the Jews, 49 percent, want the state to treat Jewish citizens better than Arab ones; 42 percent don’t want to live in the same building with Arabs and 42 percent don’t want their children in the same class with Arab children.

A third of the Jewish public wants a law barring Israeli Arabs from voting for the Knesset and a large majority of 69 percent objects to giving 2.5 million Palestinians the right to vote if Israel annexes the West Bank.

A sweeping 74 percent majority is in favor of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. A quarter – 24 percent – believe separate roads are “a good situation” and 50 percent believe they are “a necessary situation.”

Almost half – 47 percent – want part of Israel’s Arab population to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority and 36 percent support transferring some of the Arab towns from Israel to the PA, in exchange for keeping some of the West Bank settlements.

Although the territories have not been annexed, most of the Jewish public (58 percent ) already believes Israel practices apartheid against Arabs. Only 31 percent think such a system is not in force here. Over a third (38 percent ) of the Jewish public wants Israel to annex the territories with settlements on them, while 48 percent object.

The survey distinguishes among the various communities in Israeli society – secular, observant, religious, ultra-Orthodox and former Soviet immigrants. The ultra-Orthodox, in contrast to those who described themselves as religious or observant, hold the most extreme positions against the Palestinians. An overwhelming majority (83 percent ) of Haredim are in favor of segregated roads and 71 percent are in favor of transfer.

The ultra-Orthodox are also the most anti-Arab group – 70 percent of them support legally barring Israeli Arabs from voting, 82 percent support preferential treatment from the state toward Jews, and 95 percent are in favor of discrimination against Arabs in admission to workplaces.

The group classifying itself as religious is the second most anti-Arab. New immigrants from former Soviet states are closer in their views of the Palestinians to secular Israelis, and are far less radical than the religious and Haredi groups. However, the number of people who answered “don’t know” in the “Russian” community was higher than in any other.

The Russians register the highest rate of satisfaction with life in Israel (77 percent ) and the secular Israelis the lowest – only 63 percent. On average, 69 percent of Israelis are satisfied with life in Israel.

Secular Israelis appear to be the least racist – 68 percent of them would not mind having Arab neighbors in their apartment building, 73 percent would not mind Arab students in their children’s class and 50 percent believe Arabs should not be discriminated against in admission to workplaces.

The survey indicates that a third to half of Jewish Israelis want to live in a state that practices formal, open discrimination against its Arab citizens. An even larger majority wants to live in an apartheid state if Israel annexes the territories.

The survey conductors say perhaps the term “apartheid” was not clear enough to some interviewees. However, the interviewees did not object strongly to describing Israel’s character as “apartheid” already today, without annexing the territories. Only 31 percent objected to calling Israel an “apartheid state” and said “there’s no apartheid at all.”

In contrast, 39 percent believe apartheid is practiced “in a few fields”; 19 percent believe “there’s apartheid in many fields” and 11 percent do not know.

The “Russians,” as the survey calls them, display the most objection to classifying their new country as an apartheid state. A third of them – 35 percent – believe Israel practices no apartheid at all, compared to 28 percent of the secular and ultra-Orthodox communities, 27 percent of the religious and 30 percent of the observant Jews who hold that view. Altogether, 58 percent of all the groups believe Israel practices apartheid “in a few fields” or “in many fields,” while 11 percent don’t know.

Finally, the interviewees were asked whether “a famous American author [who] is boycotting Israel, claiming it practices apartheid” should be boycotted or invited to Israel. About half (48 percent ) said she should be invited to Israel, 28 percent suggest no response and only 15 percent call to boycott her.

Counter Ad: Rabbis for Human Rights, North America

Pamela Geller’s hate ads seem to have backfired. The latest round of  counter ads promoting love and tolerance are truly inspiring.

In addition to subway ads,  the progressive Christian group, Sojourners, is also sponsoring a billboard near the Toledo mosque that was the site of a recent arson attack. (H/T: Young & Free)

Pro-Muslim Subway Ads to Hang Near Anti-Jihad Ads

By ASHWAQ MASOODI, New York Times

Updated, 6:47 p.m. | Striking back against an anti-jihad advertisement in the subways widely perceived as anti-Muslim, two religious groups – one Jewish, one Christian – are taking out subway ads of their own to urge tolerance.

Rabbis for Human Rights – North America and the group Sojourners, led by the Christian author and social-justice advocate Jim Wallis, are unveiling their campaigns on Monday. Their ads will be placed near the anti-jihad ads in the same Manhattan subway stations, leaders of both groups said and transit officials confirmed. The groups said their campaigns were coincidental.

The ad by Rabbis for Human Rights turns the language of the earlier ad, placed by a pro-Israel group, on its head. The original ad says, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.” The ad by Rabbis for Human Rights says, “In the choice between love and hate, choose love. Help stop bigotry against our Muslim neighbors.”

“We wanted to make it clear that it is in response to the anti-Islam ad,” said Rabbi Jill Jacobs, executive director of Rabbis for Human Rights, whose members include rabbis from all streams of Judaism.

The Sojourners ad simply says, “Love your Muslim neighbors.”

Another Christian group, United Methodist Women, an affiliate of the United Methodist Church, has placed similar ads in the same 10 Manhattan stations where the anti-jihad appears. The ads, which went up on Wednesday, say, “Hate speech is not civilized. Support peace in word and deed.”

One of the Methodist group’s ads, in Times Square station, is posted right next to one of the anti-jihad ads.

The anti-jihad ads, placed by the American Freedom Defense Initiative in 10 Manhattan stations, went up only after the group successfully sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which wanted to ban them. They were posted late last month – in the wake, as it happened, of violent protests that had erupted in many parts of the Muslim world over an American-produced video ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad, and one of them was immediately defaced. They have been defaced at least 15 times since then, said Aaron Donovan, a spokesman for the authority.

Last week, the authority changed its advertising rules to ban ads that could “imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace.”

Mr. Donovan said the new ads “are accepted and conform with our guidelines,” adding, “The M.T.A. doesn’t endorse any of the ads we carry.”

The executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, Pamela Geller, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the new ads.

Rabbi Jacobs said: “Geller thinks she is speaking for the entire Jewish community. We are a group of 1,800 rabbis and we want everyone to know that we have to work in partnership with the Muslim community and do not believe in dehumanizing them.”

Sojourners’ campaigns manager, the Rev. Beau Underwood, said, “An essential tenet of Christianity is to love our neighbors.” He added: “In the face of religious extremism, the best response is to treat others like we would want to be treated. Our ad campaign has a simple message that is at the heart of our faith.”

Sojourners, together with some local interfaith communities, recently put up “Love your Muslim neighbors” billboards in Joplin, Mo., where a mosque was burned in August.

A Sojourners solicitation for donations says: “Hateful anti-Muslim ads only result in violence, hatred, and more fear. Everyone — regardless of race, religion, or creed — deserves to feel welcome & safe when riding public transit in the United States.”

Why is curtailing free speech wrong for Muslims and right for Western countries?

Hate-Speech Hypocrites

By William Saletan, Slate