That Joel Richardson is predicting a Muslim anti-Christ isn’t anything new. Richardson did, after all, publish a work in 2006 with the title, Anti-Christ: Islam’s Awaited Messiah; the book received an enthusiastic blurb on its front cover by none other than Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer himself,

“A fascinating and provocative work. A must read for priests and pastors, students and lay-readers everywhere.”

An Islamic Antichrist? Joel Richardson Predicts A Muslim Satanic Figure

(RNS) Every age needs an Antichrist.

Protestant Reformers picked the papacy as their embodiment of evil. American colonists chose King George III and some Cold War Christians suspected the Soviet Union was satanically led.

Now, amid threats of Islamic terrorism, a nuclear-armed Iran and tumult across the Middle East, a growing group of American evangelicals say the Antichrist will be Muslim.

“I understand that I’m going to be viewed as a fringe, apocalyptic Christian,” said Joel Richardson, author of several books predicting an Islamic Antichrist. “But I fully own the idea that the Antichrist will be a Muslim and will come out of the Muslim world.”

These days, even the fringe has a faithful following. On websites, television programs, conferences and books, conservative Christians like Richardson warn that a Muslim Antichrist will lead army to arise and attack Israel, in fulfillment of the biblical prophets and the Book of Revelation.

From there, they say, it’s a short road to Armageddon.

“Today, we’re seeing the beginning signs of that exact prophecy coming to pass,” warns Richardson.

Scholars say the arrival of Islamic Antichrist prophecies was, well, predictable.

“I think the shift to Islam was just waiting to happen,” said Glenn Shuck, an assistant professor of religion at Williams College who has studied evangelicals’ views on the apocalypse.

A certain kind of Christian, sometimes dubbed “armchair apocalyptists” or “newspaper exegetes,” seems especially inclined to cast their foes as agents of the Archenemy. The Antichrist they identify, scholars say, often reflects the era’s deepest anxieties.

For many modern Christian apocalyptists, fears of big government are embodied in an Antichrist who will unite nation-states in a totalitarian One World Order.

Since 9/11, though, Islamist terrorism has ascended as a new threat, and lept from the front pages to apocalyptic thrillers like the “Left Behind” series and nonfiction books such as Richardson’s “Mideast Beast” and “Islamic Antichrist.”

Richardson, a 40-year-old decorative painter from Missouri who jokingly refers to his writings as “an expensive hobby,” presents his prophecies as straightforward interpretations of the Bible, including the Book of Revelation.

Read the rest…

Islamophobes run with the theory that John Brennan is unfit-for-duty because he’s a “secret Muslim.” The real reason Brennan is unfit for duty is because of his track record in support of torture and drone warfare.

Right-wing runs with “John Brennan-is-a-Muslim” theory

by Jillian Rayfield (Salon.com)

A disgraced former FBI agent and anti-Islam activist claims that John Brennan, President Obama’s pick to head the CIA, is “unfit for duty” because he just might be a secret Muslim.

As Salon reported, John Guandolo claimed last weekend that “Brennan did convert to Islam when he served in an official capacity on behalf of the United States when he served in Saudi Arabia” and it “was the culmination of a counterintelligence operation against him to recruit him” by foreign operatives.

The theory, which was picked up by conspiracy-theorist central World Net Daily, has an eager audience on the right. Here’s a rundown:

Joseph Farah editor of that bastion of paranoia, the WorldNetDaily wants us to “rethink” our immigration laws. (h/t:JD)

Farah: Curtail Muslim Immigration

William Coley, the founder of Muslim4Liberty has articulated along with other like-minded individuals a philosophy of Islamic libertarianism that they explain as existing within the Islamic corpus for millenia.

Coley’s pioneering activism most significantly included making the arduous but necessary and ultimately very successful decision of reaching out to Tea Party groups in East Tennessee and challenging them on their anti-Muslim/Islam strategy. The below Illume Magazine article incidentally highlights the diversity of views amongst the Muslim American community and how identities don’t neatly fit into easy black and white categorizations of Right vs. Left.

Loonwatch is mentioned as we were one of the first to highlight Coley’s work.

New Muslim Movement Challenges Islamophopbia on Home Turf

by Carl S. Berg (Illume Magazine)

Tea Party circles in East Tennessee might seem an unlikely environment for launching a Muslim organization. Will Coley, a 31-year-old Tennessee native, Muslim convert and Tea Party activist did just that.

His one person outreach project to Tea Party conservatives and libertarians grew into the first national organization countering Islamophobia on the Right.

Their message: Islam is compatible with an anti-big government or libertariarian philosophy.

“I have noticed everywhere we go it is about the same,” says Coley. “We talk to 50 people. The five to six that pointed the group in an anti-Islam direction still hate us, but the rest start thinking, researching.”

Most notably, in 2011 Coley persuaded the majority of Tea Party organizations in East Tennessee to take a stand against Islamophobia.

After speaking with fourteen Tea Party chapters about Muslim beliefs on liberty and sharia (Islamic religious law code), twelve of them agreed to reject anti-Muslim appeals. They even publically supported a petition opposing a proposed “sharia ban” in Tennessee.

Coley’s efforts drew the attention of members of the small but growing community of Muslim libertarians, especially after an initial article on the anti-Islamophobia website Loonwatch.com.

Davi Barker, 31, a California journalist, national columnist at Examiner.com and blogger for Silver Circle Underground and Daily Anarchist, first contacted Coley to do a story on him. The two quickly began working closely together. Coley did the public presentations, and Barker writing on their philosophy of Islamic libertarianism. They were soon joined by Hesham El-Meligy, 41, from New England and Ramy Osman, 35, from Virginia.

The last two had started a website called Muslims4Liberty.org, while Coley and Barker had independently started a Facebook group called Muslims For Liberty. They decided to combine forces.

“[W]e started collaboration with them and we became a family immediately,” says El-Meligy.

By 2012, Muslims4Liberty/Muslims For Liberty (M4L) has gained hundreds of followers, establishing chapters in Tennessee, California, Ohio, Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., as well as in Australia, Malaysia and Pakistan.

El-Meligy, drawing on his connections and experience in the Northeast US, led M4L’s work with other groups in opposing New York Police Department surveillance of American Muslims. Osman organized M4L’s participation in the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms’ (NCPCF) “Ramadan Gifts for Prisoners” charity drive. M4L also co-sponsored the only two national debates featuring third party presidential candidates during the 2012 election, hosted by Larry King and broadcast by C-Span and Al Jazeera.

The rapid growth and rise of M4L developed as an entirely grass-roots effort, without the support of more established Muslim or civil rights organizations.

“It started out as just me, basically,” says Coley. “[G]oing to events, going to protests, educating people about Islam.”

Coley began doing Tea Party outreach in Florida in 2009. He started as an ordinary Tea Party activist, concerned about economics and allegedly growing government power.

But his concern at what he saw as the emergence of Islamophobia in the Tea Party movement spurred him to act.

“I was watching the neocon takeover happen,” says Coley. “Literally overnight I saw groups devoted to economics and constitutional limits turn into something else. Suddenly there were invites to see anti-Islam speakers. This crazy anti-Islam message was taking over.”

Coley responded by going to events, giving speeches and presentations, and challenging alleged anti-Muslim speakers.

The libertarian talk show host Phil Russo invited him onto his show as a guest. When Russo’s co-host quit in protest, he invited Coley to become his new co-host.

Coley also found other allies. “[W]e had republican candidates serving the homeless at Masjid al-Haqq,” says Coley adding that he “got A LOT of help from non-Muslims.”

At this time, Coley’s work was entirely solo. Other Muslims had a “you go and then tell us how it went when you get back” attitude, says Coley. “An event would be me inviting everyone I know, and then myself, my wife, and our 5 month old….500 people there, 3 Muslims.”

Things changed in 2011, when Coley moved his family to his home state of Tennessee. “I wanted to raise my family here, not in big city Orlando,” says Coley.

He also began doing outreach to local Tea Party groups. His original intention was to focus on educational basics about Muslim belief and practice, such as the Five Pillars and the Qur’an, as well as Muslim artwork.

The sudden announcement in the press of anti-sharia legislation in the Tennessee House and Senate changed everything.

“[We] changed the format of the Islam Awareness lectures at the library. Since sharia had become the issue, we decided to devote each week to covering a different area or aspect of sharia,” says Coley. “We invited two Tea Party groups. One cursed at me, called me names and said I was Muslim and therefore they had no interest in speaking to me or hearing anything my ‘lying mouth’ had to say. The other invited other Tea Party groups.”

“After the lectures, these Tea Party groups took our information home with them. We offered paper, pens, and wrote notes on the board. Then there was a meeting of all the East Tennessee tea party groups, fourteen in all, and they had a vote. 12/2 was the vote, to abandon attacking Islam as a tactic.”

The rise of an American Muslim libertarian movement is not surprising to Anthony Gregory, 31, a leading antiwar libertarian, policy analyst and commentator.

Read the rest…

Ilisha has written several seminal articles for Loonwatch on the relationship between honor killings and Islamophobia that have gone a long way in debunking the prevailing narrative frame propagated by the looniverse that casts Islam as inherently supportive of “honour crimes.”

Belen Fernandez’s article on AlJazeera English is a welcome addition to this discussion which she analyzes in light of the propensity of certain Zionist organizations and individuals/Right-wingers who adopt “honour killings as a pet topic” to further their own agendas.

I will add that the adoption of such “pet topics” is not limited to only certain Zionists and Right-wingers but also seeps into the discourse of self-declared Liberals who are employed in the business of Empire.

Honour crimes and Islamophobia

by Belen Fernandez (AlJazeera English)

On December 11, the University of Rochester in western New York state will host an event ”[t]o shed sorely needed daylight on the complex issue of honour crimes in our community”.

Organised by an assistant professor from the Rochester Medical School’s Psychiatry Department, the event will consist of various discussions with “community leaders, academics, members of law enforcement agencies, legal professionals and health providers” and will feature an Arab Israeli keynote speaker from “an organisation that works to end honour killings in Israel”.

The “complex issue” requiring psychiatric attention appears even more complicated when we consider that honour crimes don’t seem to constitute an overwhelming problem in the community. Though it could be argued that this is simply because sorely needed daylight has yet to be shed on them, it is worthwhile highlighting the ease with which daylight can be manufactured.

For example, when teenager Faheem Abdul Jaleel apparently stabbed his female cousin in a Rochester suburb in June 2011, the anti-Islamic vanguard headed by the preposterously influential commentator Pamela Geller wasted no time in decrying an “attempted honour killing”, based entirely on the ethnic connotations of the perpetrator’s name.

Also in 2011, NPR reported that the Muslim community in Buffalo, New York, had been “fighting the stereotype” of honour killings since a spontaneous misdiagnosis in the press regarding the 2009 murder of a Muslim woman by her husband.

As is meanwhile quite clear from domestic violence and homicide statistics among the 99 per cent of the US population that is not Muslim, such crimes generally take place independent of Islam.

Israel’s non-criminal killing of Arabs 

By adopting honour killings as a pet topic, Zionists and other right-wing forces seek to delegitimise and even criminalise Arab and Muslim society in general.

Consider an August 2012 essay in the neo-conservative FrontPage Magazine asserting an “Arab cultural and Islamic propensity of violence toward women”.

The author characterises the fatal stabbing of a 27-year-old Palestinian woman by her husband as a “death sentence which tragically has been shared by a long and ever-expanding list of Palestinian women and girls”. He does not care to explain why it is not also tragic that an even longer expanding list of Palestinian women, girls and all other varieties of human beings happen to share the fate of obliteration by Israeli munitions. Nor does he delve into what this might indicate about Israeli cultural propensities or those of Israel’s preferred ally and automated teller machine.

Without downplaying the obvious tragedy of honour crimes, we must ask why it is that we are supposed to be horrified by the idea that “in the past two years, 25 [Palestinian] women have been subjected to honour killings” but not by the fact that 1,400 Palestinians were wiped out in three weeks during Operation Cast Lead.

FrontPage claims that, although “honour killings have long been a staple byproduct of Palestinian society”, the world’s foremost anti-Israel institution – that is, the UN, which nonetheless somehow manages never to enforce resolutions against the Jewish state – has deceitfully implicated non-Palestinians in said byproduct:

“Not surprisingly, for some, this pervasive [Palestinian] violence has been laid at the feet of the usual suspects, namely the Israelis. This scapegoating was summarily expressed in a 2011 report by the United Nations Economic and Social Council which blamed harsh economic and social conditions created by the Israeli ’siege’, an occupation which has led to high levels of poverty, unemployment and, thus, ’violence, within families’.”

The article’s allegation that “in Muslim countries throughout the Mideast, South Asia and Africa… men more often than not treat women little better than livestock” is meanwhile followed by the suggestion that “[c]hanging that dismal equation will take more than just a cultural revolution”. This seems to prescribe further state violence as a means of ending individual violence, which is itself often inextricably linked to state violence in the first place.

Islamic imperialism and mind control 

Conveniently located to one side of the article on the FrontPage website is an advertisement for another stellar example of scapegoating: A pamphlet entitled, ”Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future“.

Penned by FrontPage founder David Horowitz and co-conspirator Robert Spencer, the pamphlet promises – for a mere three-dollar donation – to explain how Islamophobia is an invention of the Muslim Brotherhood and to expose the UN’s role in the Brotherhood’s project to “destroy the American civilisation from within” by criminalising criticism of Islam.

Lest doubts remain that Islamophobia is anything but a disease afflicting the authors themselves, the summary of the essay posits a pattern of “Islamic imperialism” in the West. Apparently, the Islamic empire is being erected on the foundations of valid complaints of Western anti-Muslim discrimination rather than, say, ubiquitous military bases and the exploitation of humans and resources that characterises other better-known forms of imperialism.

The summary also denotes as a “notable opponent of Islamic terror” the late Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, whose anti-terror efforts included vows to explode a mosque slated for construction in Tuscany and hysterics over the reckless American policy of permitting persons by the name of Mustafa and Muhammad to study chemistry and biology at university despite the threat of Muslim-waged germ warfare.

Clearly, Horowitz and Spencer’s purported attempt to contribute to “the global struggle against religious intolerance and totalitarianism” is an example of hypocrisy in the extreme. However, endeavours such as Rochester University’s symposium on honour killings can prove similarly problematic, providing as they do a venue for the incubation of racist and paranoid delusions and the targeting of a single religious group that has already been disproportionately subjected to civil rights violations by the New York Police Department.

Read the rest…

Note: I expect the predictable type of criticisms of the sentence in which Belen says, “By adopting honour killings as a pet topic, Zionists and other right-wing forces…” I will just say that it appears to me she is speaking about “right-wing” forces and not stating “all Zionists” adopt “honour killings” as a pet topic.

Misty water-colored memories: The August 2011 GOP debate in Ames, Iowa

Dateline: Election Day 2012

by Kelley B. Vlahos (AntiWar.com)

For the better part of two years the campaign saga has pounded the surf of our daily lives like a relentless black tide. Now, in a matter of hours, polling places at last will close, with either President Barack Obama or Mitt Romney emerging victorious at the other end, the flotsam and jetsam of the last 24 months receding quietly into memory.

For the most part, it’s a lot of detritus we want to see go. Forever. But think about it, in the morning light, the world will look a lot more dangerous than it even did two years ago. Furthermore, all we know about the candidates on foreign policy and national security is that the incumbent has no fresh ideas and the new guy, well, he was nominated from a collection of Republican circus acts who distinguished themselves by debating whether Palestinians were “invented,” how fast they could declare war on Iran, who loved Israel most, how many illegal immigrants could be sent home at once, how many more zillions they would add to the military budget, and who was more exceptionally exceptional about America’s super-duper exceptionalism.

Thanks for the memories. Really. Some of them were downright funny — in a bleak, cynical and moronic sort of way. In fact, The Republican primaries were like one step up from watching high school juniors dueling for class president promising no mystery meat and less homework. Except the red meat here was no mystery, and these paper dolls obviously don’t do homework. Hearing Rick Perry call for predator drones (for spying, really) on the Mexican border, only to be outdone by Herman Cain’s endorsement of a 2,000-mile electrified fence, was more proof than ever that we are headed for the zombie apocalypse — and woefully unready.

Think about it — as we enter the final hours of this quadrennial ritual, the Middle East is not only embroiled in war and revolution, but is sizzling on the verge of a Sunni-Shia conflagration. There are some 68,000 American troops still in Afghanistan, not to mention countless contractors and government personnel, and by all accounts (outside the desperate Pentagon spin machine), our Band Aid is barely keeping the place together. Pakistan is a tinderbox, Africa too. The Drug War is bleeding Mexico and Central America like a leech. Fiscal crisis has paralyzed Europe and no one really knows how Iran will react to the boot the U.S. has managed to plant firmly on its throat.

Yet for two years we have heard virtually nothing about how the candidates plan to approach these confounding global challenges, only a virulent blame game in which the current president is accused of apologizing and appeasing too much. By the way, nothing says “I’m sorry” like a wedding party flattened by a Hellfire missile, or incinerating a 16-year-old American boy because he has the wrong parentage. They should be pleased, but the Republicans have instead chosen to ramp up their own manic house organ in hopes that no one will notice they’re all playing the same tune.

Sadly, the only countervailing balance in this woeful ensemble was eventually dropped from the circuit, making all foreign policy and national security talk a race to inanity. Ron Paul and to some small extent, Jon Huntsman, were able to provide some semblance of clarity, calling into question the militaristic doggerel coming from such sultans of smarm as Newt “the Muslims are coming” Gingrich, and Rick “onward American soldiers” Santorum, not to mention the man running for president on the Republican Party ticket today.

“We have to stop being the policemen of the world!” Paul charged in the December 2012 GOP debate in Iowa. “We don’t need another war in Syria and we don’t need another war in Iran.”

For his part, Huntsman pushed back on the popular GOP war narrative, too. At the November 2011 debate in Washington, no doubt sick of hearing Romney’s oft-repeated declaration that he “stands with the commanders,” not the president, on how soon the U.S. should leave Afghanistan, he quipped, “at the end of the day, the President of the United States is Commander in Chief.”

“I also remember when people listened to the generals in 1967 and we heard a certain course of action in South Asia that didn’t serve our interests very well,” he added icily.

Zing! One of the most powerful comebacks in all the foreign policy debates combined, yet it died out like a match in the rain as Huntsman left the campaign in January and Paul became increasingly drowned out by the racket in the booby hatch during what is now known as the long dark winter of the Republican Primary.

And what a racket it was, some of it quite amusing and dismal at the same time. Kind of like watching one episode of “Curb your Enthusiasm” after an another, on depressants. But this was no satire, it was painfully real.

Given that it was the Obama Administration’s job to merely defend its policies and try to convince America a bag of coal is a satin purse of diamonds, it was up to the Republicans to outdo the President on even his most hawkish, interventionist policies. As we await the fate of the duopoly, let us recap some of the highlights of this garish Republican exercise, a spectacularly odious and benighted road map to today’s election:

“Is what I said historically correct? Yes. Is it factually true? Yes … Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth. These people are terrorists…” — Newt Gingrichduring the Dec. 11 debate in response to a question about why he called Palestinians an “invented people” who had the “chance to go to many places.”

“..Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend, Bibi Netanyahu and say, would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do? —Mitt Romney’s response to Gingrich’s “invented people remark” during the debate.

“Well, first of all, you thank heavens that Fidel Castro has returned to his maker and will be sent to another land.” — Romney in response to a hypothetical question about Fidel Castro’s death, during the Tampa GOP Debate.

“I guess the only thing I would suggest is I don’t think that Fidel is going to meet his maker. I think he’s going to go to the other place.” — Gingrich in response to Romney’s response.

“The bottom line is the theocracy that runs Iran is the equivalent of having al Qaeda in charge of a country with huge oil reserves, gas reserves, and a nuclear weapon. That is something that no president could possibly allow to have happen under any circumstances.” — Rick Santorum in response to a question about whether the American public would support military attacks on Iranian missile sites, at the Tampa debate.

“It (electric fence) might be electrified, I’m not walking away from that, I just don’t want to offend anyone…” — Herman Cain on controversial immigration remarks, while meeting with anti-immigrant Sheriff Joe Arpaio in October 2011.

“I think the person who really has a problem with illegal immigration in the country is President Obama. It’s his uncle and his aunt who are illegal aliens who’ve been allowed to stay in this country, despite the fact that they’re illegal…I will build a double-walled fence with — with an area of security neutrality in between. I will build that, because this is what we know. This is an economics issue and a jobs issue”— Michele Bachmann in response to a question about whether a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border is necessary, at the Las Vegas GOP Debate, October 2011.

“I believe that American military superiority is the right course. President Obama says that we have people throughout the world with common interests. I just don’t agree with him. I think there are people in the world that want to oppress other people, that are evil.” — Romney during GOP foreign policy debate in Washington, Nov. 22, 2011.

“A world without U.S. leadership will be a more chaotic place, a place where we have less influence, and a place where our citizens face more dangers and fewer opportunities…. a safer world and a more prosperous America go hand-in-hand …we must renew our commitment to the idea that America is the greatest force for human freedom the world has ever seen.” — Paul Ryan, in a speech at the Alexander Hamilton Society, June 2012.

I do not view America as just one more point on the strategic map, one more power to be balanced. I believe our country is the greatest force for good the world has ever known, and that our influence is needed as much now as ever. And I am guided by one overwhelming conviction and passion: This century must be an American Century.” — Romney remarks before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, July 2012.

“Like a watchman in the night, we must remain at our post — and keep guard of the freedom that defines and ennobles us, and our friends…In an American Century, we secure peace through our strength.” — Romney at VFW.

“If I were Iran, if I were Iran—a crazed fanatic, I’d say let’s get a little fissile material to Hezbollah, have them carry it to Chicago or some other place, and then if anything goes wrong, or America starts acting up, we’ll just say, ‘Guess what? Unless you stand down, why, we’re going to let off a dirty bomb.’ I mean this is where we have—where America could be held up and blackmailed by Iran, by the mullahs, by crazy people.” — Romney, at a private fundraiser, May 17, 2012.

“They (Iran) are racing toward a nuclear weapon,” Ryan, Vice Presidential Debate,October 2012.

“I would not meet with Ahmadinejad. He should be excluded from diplomatic society. He should be indicted for the crime of incitement to genocide under Article III of the Genocide Convention,” Romney, Republican Jewish Coalition, December 2011.

“This President appears more generous to our enemies than he is to our friends. Such is the natural tendency of someone who is unsure of America’s strength — or of America’s rightful place in the world. The course of appeasement and accommodation has long been the path chosen by the weak and the timid. And history shows it is a path that nation’s choose at their own peril.” — Romney before Republican Jewish Coalition.

“I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States … if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play.” — Michele Bachmann, before the Republican Jewish Coalition.

“We are all George Washington now, and this is our Delaware crossing, our march on Trenton. Liberation from tyranny is ours if we are willing to fight hard enough for it. Sharia law is our tyranny. It’s not exactly here yet. But it will be. And when it is — when we are all wearing burqas and long straggly beards and hanging limply from trees for our transgressions — we’ll be sorry we had listened to the ‘secular-socialists’ running the country instead of intellectual revolutionaries like the good people here at AEI, and of course, myself.” — Gingrich before the American Enterprise Institute, August 2010.

“The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. … What I’m talking about is onward American soldiers. What we’re talking about are core American values” —Santorum, campaigning in South Carolina, 2011.

“I think the Democrats are actually worried he (Obama) may go to Indonesia and bow to more Muslims.” — Santorum, Fox News, May 2010.

Won’t you take me to Clown Town?

Many of us who are displeased with how foreign policy and national security have devolved over the last two administrations and throughout this campaign will have little to cheer about on Nov. 7 either way, whether it be status quo, or Clown Town. The morning after and days that follow will no doubt bring the pangs of regret: that no one was strong enough to transcend the foolishness and make a real difference, and that this is all hastening to the time where things truly fall apart.

Omar Ibn Said

The early presence of Muslims in the Americas is a favorite subject of mine that I constantly return to study, and Lynn Parramore’s contribution in this article is a great addition to the topic– on top of coming at very important time.

I believe that not only will right-wingers be shocked (their heads might explode) but many left-wingers and Muslims will also be surprised to learn about how Islam has been a part of American history for quite some time. (h/t:Critical Dragon)

Right-Wingers Would Be Shocked to Learn That Islam Has Been Part of American History Since Its Founding

Recently, just as turmoil in the Middle East erupted, New York straphangers were treated to hateful anti-Muslim billboards, courtesy of Pamela Geller, leader of “Stop Islamization of America.” The ads, which declared that radical Muslims are “savages” waging war on the civilized world, created a furor and resulted in widespread defacements (for a roundup, check out the Awl), the arrest of a journalist , and possible changes to the rules governing subway and bus advertisements that might incite violence.

Islamophobia is back with a vengeance. Geller, a self-appointed hate czar, catapulted herself to racist celebrity back in 2010 with shrill denouncements of an Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan near the site of the World Trade Center. Since then, her repeat warnings of Islam’s foreign threat to America have resonated powerfully in a post-9/11 world where violent protests in the Middle East over a crude anti-Muslim film have triggered a fresh wave of anxiety.

It would undoubtedly shock Geller and her Islamophobic buddies to know that Muslims have been in America for so long they could almost have formed a welcoming committee to the Daughters of the Revolution.

Consider this: Anthony “The Turk” Janszoon van Salee , son of the president of the Republic of Salé in Morocco, was among the earliest and richest settlers of Manhattan island, a devout Muslim, and the ancestor of Cornelius Vanderbilt, the Whitneys, Humphrey Bogart, and, according to family lore, Jacqueline Bouvier. That’s right: the Lady of Camelot apparently had a mixed-race Muslim as an ancestor! One of van Salee’s first properties was a farm in lower Manhattan acquired in 1638 located on the north side of the stockade along present-day Wall Street, just blocks from the Park Place Islamic center characterized by Geller as a foreign presence on sacred American soil. A defender of minorities, van Salee became the first settler of Brooklyn. Coney Island, which abutted his property, was known as “Turk’s Island” until the 19th century.

Muslims are feeling unwelcome in America today, but followers of Muhammed were living here before the arrival of English in Spanish-controlled Florida and French Louisiana, where slaves were imported from the Senegambia region of Africa, home to a large Muslim population.

Influenced by the tolerance of the Enlightenment, America’s founders considered Islam’s place in the new republic despite widespread fear of Barbary pirates and a sense of European rivalry with the Ottoman Empire. As befitting a student of law in a religiously diverse land, Thomas Jefferson purchased a Quran to learn about the Islamic legal code – the same Quran that was used in the swearing inof Muslim Keith Ellison to the U.S. Congress. In 1776, John Adams published “Thoughts on Government,” which praised the prophet Muhammad as a “sober inquirer after truth.” Ben Franklin set up a non-sectarian meeting house in Philadelphia, declaring in his autobiography that “even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.”

Tea Partiers occasionally know and distort these facts, but they are completely ignorant about another side of American Islam. Until recently, the study of the African transmission of Islam to America has been neglected, partly because materials are scarce, and partly because early observers were often ignorant of Islam or had reasons for downplaying the fact that God-fearing, literate people among the enslaved had to be written off as heathen and backwards in order to justify the institution.

And yet the numbers of enslaved Africans who were Muslims was significant: Conservative estimates put the number at 10 percent of all slaves, with some estimates running as high as 30 percent. A hodgepodge of sources –from plantation records to runaway slave advertisements to WPA interviews – show that Muslims went to great lengths to observe their religion; that Islam was a marker of status in the larger African American society; and that African American culture reflects the influence of early Muslims. On Sapelo Island, Georgia, for example, the congregation of the First African Baptist Church always prays to the east, the direction in which the church is pointed, and bodies are buried pointing to the east. The Nation of Islam may have been the 20th-century manifestation of a very ancient connection to a religion that had lived on in the South for centuries among African Amerians even though it was overtaken by Christianity. Historian Michael Gomez points out that Elijah Muhammad, born in 1898 in Georgia, grew up at a time when Islam may still have been practiced by African-born Muslims, and the children and grandchildren of early Muslims were likely aware of their Islamic heritage.

On plantations throughout the South, particularly in the early period of slavery, it would have been possible to see enslaved Africans with names like Mustapha and Fatima kneeling on prayer mats, their faces turned toward the rising sun. (Writing of “Arabic-Africans” along the coast of Georgia, Joel Chandler Harris called them “not the most numerous, but the most noticeable” type.) Some planters particularly sought slaves from Senegambia for their knowledge of rice cultivation, and some Southern slave owners considered Muslims superior to non-Muslims as workers, though others considered their education and literacy to be dangerous.

A few enslaved Muslims achieved notoriety, such as Bilali, a “driver” who managed a large plantation on Sapelo Island, Georgia and who, when called upon by his owner to defend the island against the British in 1813, gave a reply that revealed his status and religious pride: “I will answer for every Negro of the true faith, but not for the Christian dogs you own.” (Bilali went on to defend the plantation with a force of 80 armed slaves.) In Fayetteville, North Carolina, a jailed runaway slave from Charleston, South Carolina, astonished locals with his princely bearing and the beautiful signs he made on the wall, writing from right to left. Omar ibn Said, a Muslim scholar, was bought by the brother of the governor of the state, who was intrigued by this highly literate man who eventually wrote his autobiography in Arabic, the only slave to do so in captivity. His Arabic Bible, procured with the help of Francis Scott Key, can be seen today in the library of Davidson College.

Polls show that Americans remain unfamiliar with Islam, and according to the ACLU, anti-mosque activity has bubbled up in more than half of U.S. states in the last five years. Yet Islam is inextricably woven into the fabric of American history, from the distinctive service of Muslims in all American wars, including the Revolution, to the legacy of their descendents, which include notable figures. (Abolitionist Frederick Douglass changed his name from Frederick Bailey, and it is possible that the name “Bailey” is a form of the Arabic common name “Bilali.”)

Muslims wish to be seen as Americans, and a look at America’s Islamic roots proves that they have every right to be – even more, perhaps, than those who rail against them. It’s time to clarify the confusion about the role of Islam in early America and remind ourselves that far from being a foreign presence, Muslims have exerted an influence on American culture even greater than their numbers would suggest from the very beginning. The real foreign presence is Islamophobia, which is completley at odds with America’s founding principles.

For further information on America’s Islamic roots, see Allan D. Austin’s African Muslims in Antebellum America. Helpful articles include Michael Gomez’s “Muslims in Early America” published in the Journal of Southern History and Thomas Custis Parramore’s “Muslim Slave Aristocrats in North Carolina” published in the North Carolina Historical Review. I was aware of this history as a child because the last historian mentioned is my late father.

Charles Johnson asks the question on all of our minds, “What the hell is wrong with these people?” (h/t: CriticalDragon)

Wingnut Bloggers Claimed Photos Showed ‘Muslims Dragging Stevens’ – Actually Showed Libyan Rescuers

by Charles Johnson, (LGF)

New reports from Libya confirm that the Libyan citizens the right wing blogosphere claimed were “dragging Ambassador Stevens’ body through the streets like Somalia” were actually trying to save his life: Video Appears to Show Libyans Retrieving Envoy’s Body.

Labeled the work of Fahd al-Bakkosh, the video centers on what appears to be the same tall, narrow window that witnesses have described as Mr. Stevens’s last exit. The witnesses said residents drawn to the scene had forced open the window and found Mr. Stevens behind a locked iron gate, pulled him out and taken him to the hospital. In the video, none say anything that shows ill will.

“I swear, he’s dead,” one Libyan says, peering in.

“Bring him out, man! Bring him out,” another says.

“The man is alive. Move out of the way,” others shout. “Just bring him out, man.”

“Move, move, he is still alive!”

“Alive, Alive! God is great,” the crowd erupts, while someone calls to bring Mr. Stevens to a car.

Mr. Stevens was taken to a hospital, where a doctor tried to revive him, but said he was all but dead on arrival.

More info from the AP: Libyan Witness: Stevens Was Breathing When Found.

A group of people gathered as several men pulled the seemingly lifeless form from the room. They saw he was alive and a foreigner, though no one recognized him as Stevens, al-Bakoush said.

He was breathing and his eyelids flickered, he said. “I tested his pulse and he was alive,” he said “No doubt. His face was blackened and he was like a paralyzed person.”

Video taken by al-Bakoush and posted on YouTube shows Stevens being carried out of a small dark room through a window with a raised shutter and being laid on the floor. One man touches his neck to feel for a pulse. Some of the men shout, “God is great.”

The video has been authenticated since Stevens’ face is clearly visible and he is wearing the same white t-shirt seen in authenticated photos of him being carried away one another man’s shoulders, presumably moments later.

Right wing bloggers almost universally seized on early photos of this chaotic scene, jumped to the false conclusion that these were the people who killed Ambassador Stevens, and promptly started ranting about barbaric Muslims.

In fact, those photographs actually showed Libyans rushing Stevens to the hospital.

Recapping some of the right wing blogs’ reactions:

The stupidest person on the Internet, Jim Hoft, demonstrated again that he’s also one of the most hateful people on the Internet: ISLAMISTS DRAG DEAD BODY of US AMBASSADOR THROUGH the STREETS of BENGHAZI! (Updated) …Another Photo! | the Gateway Pundit.

Hoft went even further, repeating a disgusting bogus report from a Lebanese tabloid: Horror!… Lebanese Reports: US Ambassador Raped Before His Murder | the Gateway Pundit.

Hateblogger Pamela Geller is even more vile than Hoft, though. This is how Geller portrays the video showing the rescuers trying to save Ambassador Stevens: VIDEO SHOWS US AMBASSADOR BEING DRAGGED FROM SAFEHOUSE IN LIBYA BY MUSLIMS SCREAMING ALLAHU AKBAR.

John Hinderaker of Powerline posted a photo of Stevens being rushed to the hospital with this comment:

I can’t tell from the photo whether he was dead at this time or not. I hope so…

Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart.com also posted one of the photos of Stevens being rescued, with this comment:

Photographic images told a different story of the crowd’s conduct, however. Rather than aiding Ambassador Stevens, the crowd appeared to be dragging him through the streets. One image showed a member of the crowd carrying an unidentified man that appears to be Ambassador Stevens on his shoulders like a hunting trophy.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

Kamal Saleem has his scared face on

It seems ex-terrorist fraud Kamal Saleem is up to his old over-the-top lying tricks again. (h/t: Critical Dragon)

Kamal Saleem tells Values Voter Summit that Clinton plans to ‘Shut Down’ Churches, College Professors work with Terrorists

Walid Shoebat

Walid Shoebat weighs in with his own conspiracy theories about Huma Abedin:

Huma Abedin Conspiracies Get Weirder

The conspiracy theories about Huma Abedin’s marriage to former congressman Anthony Weiner keep getting weirder. Walid Shoebat, who according to the Center for American Progress [pdf] is a “former purported Islamic terrorist turned apocalyptic Christian,” recently told David Horowitz’s FrontPageMag that Abedin’s marriage to Weiner, who is Jewish, is either part of her Muslim Brotherhood espionage or shows that Weiner converted to Islam, or both:

It is extremely rare to have Muslim women marry non-Muslims, much less to have conservative Muslims look the other way, unless Huma has a “higher calling” and a unique exception was made for her, since she is an ear into top U.S. sensitive information, or Anthony Weiner has converted to Islam or even both.

On Monday, Shoebat told the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios that the rise of Muslim Brotherhood is all part of biblical prophecy and we are witnessing the birth pangs of the End Times:

He also claimed that Obama is assisting the Muslim Brotherhood and is “in bed with terrorists,” and that Michele Bachmann and Louie Gohmert, two of the five Republican congressmen who have accused Abedin of cooperating with the Muslim Brotherhood, are acting like modern day John the Baptist fighting today’s Herod:

 Rios: Did you have any idea, even ten years ago or right after 9/11 that things would come to this dangerous state where we do have, and we’re going to talk about this, this incredible infiltration at the highest levels and no one would listen? Did you ever foresee this?

Shoebat: Yes, yes, of course I expected this. Americans had a test when the elections happened and the results were Obama. We’ve seen anybody, you know, who looks at Obama’s record, he was in bed with terrorists. People need to confront this issue once and for all, President Obama doesn’t have a clean record.

…

Rios: Should we be worried about Michele Bachmann and Louie Gohmert and all these letters? Should we defend them, what’s the point?

Shoebat: Well, I mean, if you look at the story of John the Baptist, John the Baptist was doing what? He was a symbol of the church. He was fighting against Herod, Herod was a symbol of the Antichrist, a symbol of the evil one. So what happened? He exposed Herod and he got his head chopped off. So there is a danger in fighting this but the church’s position is to expose and to fight for what is right.