Robert Spencer

|

Pamela Geller

|

Bat Ye'or

|

Brigitte Gabriel

|

Daniel Pipes

|

Debbie Schlussel

|

Walid Shoebat

|

Joe Kaufman

|

Wafa Sultan

|

Geert Wilders

|

The Nuclear Card

Anti-Loons of 2011: Profiles in Courage

Posted on 29 December 2011 by Admin

From Molly Norris, one of the Anti-Loons of 2010

(A List of the anti-Loons of 2010.)

That time where we recount and reflect upon the events and happenings of the past year is upon us. A review of 2011 is due in short order, but before we post that piece we will consider the anti-Loons of the year. This time around it would only be fair to allow loonwatchers to vote for the Anti-Loon of the Year. As we can’t create a poll, we present those we found deserving of such a consideration.

It goes without saying that we feature and cite many of Glenn Greenwald’s articles. His research is almost always exhaustive and thorough. The facts he uncovers are intertwined with phenomenal analysis that very often exposes the hypocrisy of the US government, attacks on the rule of law, double standards in media and much more.

A perennial Anti-Loon, Stephen Colbert has joined his creative prowess with biting political satire that is only challenged by his arch-nemesis Jon Stewart. Colbert lent his enormous talents quite a few times in brutally exposing the stupidity of Islamophobia.

 

 

We freakin’ love Jon Stewart! We have his image on the side of our website linking to his page on Comedy Central. He is an inspiration, and what he has done to combat Islamophobia in this country is, in my opinion, equal to the efforts of a Glenn Greenwald.

Wajahat Ali has made an extraordinary contribution towards, on the one hand, “humanizing Muslims” and “Islam” through the arts, and on the other hand factually taking apart the funding of the Islamophobia apparatus in this country. His contribution to the Center for American Progress report entitled Fear, Inc. was one of the biggest stories of the year. For this, co-authors Matt Duss and Eli Clifton deserve an honorable mention as well.

Sheila Musaji has for a long time been taking anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamophobia to task through her website The American Muslim. She has been a premiere defender of justice, equality and freedom, and for her strong stance she draws the ire and scorn of the hatemongers. Keep up the indispensable and valuable work Sheila!

 

Sherrif Lee Baca has been a consistent defender of religious freedom and pluralism. He is someone who actually interacts with Muslims and has taken the effort to understand Islam. In his amazing testimony in front of Congress during the Peter King McCarthyesque hearings he displayed his intricate knowledge of not only Islam but the smears leveled at Muslim leaders and organizations. He provided curt, substantial, factual and logical replies to leading anti-Muslim questions that too often are not rebutted in the mainstream.

Ahmed Rehab is a consistent and seemingly tireless voice for rationality and harmony in our society today. He is one of a handful of Muslims who manages to receive airtime to annihilate any and all Islamophobes he encounters in debate; various Fox News interviews attest to that reality. His participation in the Arab Spring highlights the diversity of his activism. Recently, his article on the “Radical Right” threat to America garnered much attention and is a necessary corrective to the exaggerated focus on conspiracies of “Islamization” and “terrorism.” A point we have been making on this site for quite some time now.

Reza Aslan is one of our favorite scholars. When he is not demolishing Islamophobes in debate he is traveling the country speaking at various venues about Islam, the Muslim world and its interactions with the West. He is also a powerful voice for peace and his exclusive interview with Loonwatch was one of the highlights of the year for us:

 

 

Sarah Posner is one of the foremost writers on religion in America today. Her articles are carried widely across the country in many different venues. Her skill at in-depth analysis of religious trends makes her an important voice when she turns her attention to anti-Muslim and Islamophobic bigotry.

Haroon Mughal is a great writer, with tremendous insight and piercing analysis. He went into the lion’s den when he attended a radical Christian gathering in Detroit that was aimed at having Jesus “invade” the dreams of Muslims and turn them into Christians.

Richard Silverstein is an ally and a friend of Loonwatch. His work detailing the hate amongst extremist Zionists in Israel and their American counterparts has been significant and vital. He is a promoter of peace and is continuing the Jihad of Tikun Olam, “repairing the world.”

 

Cenk Uygur is another perennial favorite of ours on Loonwatch. His show, the Young Turks provides us with much material in exposing the fallacies of right-wing loons:

 

Aasif Mandvi is a special reporter for the Daily Show and one of the shining lights of Muslim comedy in the America today.

 

 

Russel Simmons has been out in front fighting bigotry against all people especially Muslims. He was a prominent voice supporting Park51 and recently bought all the Ad space for the All American Muslim reality show.

The Peter King hearings while bringing forth the ugly populism that lies at the heart of much of our politics also highlighted some courageous and forthright politicians who were willing to take a stand against demagoguery and hatred.

Rep. Keith Ellison’s testimony at the Peter King hearings was heart wrenching. Ellison did a good job over the past year of humanizing Muslims and being a progressive voice for justice and equality in the nation.

A friend and ally of the site, Lesley Hazleton is an erudite scholar with a tremendous sense of humor.

This by far has not been an exhaustive list. Please add any names you think are important to see here and we will update the piece. Below are some more individuals deserving of anti-Loon consideration (*not in any particular order):

*Update: Bob Pitt of Islamophobia-Watch, Muhammed Malik, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, Chris Christie, Charles Johnson of LGF, Faiz Shakir, Mikey Weinstein, William Coley, Tariq Jahan.

Max Blumenthal

Spencer Ackerman

Charles Kurzman

Kenny Irwin Jr.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Andrea Elliot

Justin Elliot

Alex Pareene

Zubiru Jalloh

Rais Bhuiyan

Kari Ansari

Mevludin Oric:

Richard Bartholomew:

John Esposito:

Alan Colmes:

Two Young Chechens:

Prof Risa A. Brooks:

111 Comments For This Post

  1. Believing Atheist Says:

    You guys have forgotten a few liberals.

    You have forgotten Think Progress (CAP) and their report exposing the funding of the Islamophobic network.
    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/26/304306/islamophobia-network/

    You have forgotten Democracy Now and Amy Goodman, a radio and internet show which frequently eradicates Islamophobic myths and supports Palestine.

    But I think CAP and Think Progress should at least be mentioned.

  2. Believing Atheist Says:

    Also one more thing. You guys repeatedly get your information thanks to the likes of LGF and Charles Johnson. At least mention him as a candidate to be an anti-loon.

  3. James Says:

    I agree with the Charles Johnson honorable mention. Also, I think Gov. Chris Christie should be mentioned. Although he didn’t do much, his comments defending Sohail Muhammed symbolically were huge. In a climate where all politicians, and anything mainstream for that matter (ie. Lowes) are afraid to call out Islamophobia for what it is – Christie was not.

  4. mubin shaikh Says:

    STEPHEN COLBERT!!! :)

  5. Al Says:

    Great selection; I need to think some more of who I’ll vote for. Take Russel Simmons off the list… he’s nothing more than an opportunist!

  6. Nabeel Says:

    That’s a hell of a list to choose from. Too many good people, I can’t choose.

  7. mindy1 Says:

    Good on them :D

  8. Farha Khaled Says:

    They are all ideal candidates for the Anti Loon award.

    I would also suggest:

    Faiz Shakir – Editor of Think Progress, whose team compiled the CAP report. Two members are mentioned above,

    Mikey Weinstein – of Military Religious Freedom Foundation that fights bigotry in the military coming primarily from the Dominionist Christian Right. He was up for a Nobel prize I believe.

    I’m sure there are others too.

    It would be a nice gesture if readers could articulate their thoughts and appreciation into a letter or email of thanks to everyone on the list above.

  9. :/ Says:

    DISAPPOINTED!! seems that people who go INTO tea party and conservative groups and challenge their misconceptions of Islam DIRECTLY don’t bear mentioning.Those who are courageous enough to rave a.m. talk radio and confront their anti islam propaganda FACE TO FACE. Not behind psuedonyms in blogs. Is it because they aren’t liberals? Hell you guys even covered one of these freedom fighters in March in your “civil war in tennessee” article.

  10. Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad a-Amriki Says:

    Add: Most of America’s nineteen million muslims who, by simply being good neighbors, helpful, and calm, and refusing to be provoked into the hate-fest battle of the enemies of humanity against the heritage of all humanity in Abraham, make the blood libel propaganda fall on deaf ears in the towns and neighborhoods of the only place on earth that religious liberty is written into the hearts of the people.

  11. Ilisha Says:

    @ :/

    Did you miss this? …

    “Please add any names you think are important to see here and we will update the piece.”

    If you want to add someone, please provide a name. There is no left wing conspiracy behind the selections.

  12. Inspired by Mohammad Says:

    Well how are we supposed to vote then? I agree with the suggestions above about other candidates, and that they are all worthy.

  13. Garibaldi Says:

    What would happen if you got all these people in the same room?

  14. Garibaldi Says:

    @ :/
    I hope you post again and give us some names of those you want to see up there.

  15. Believing Atheist Says:

    I hope Loonwatch sincerely retracts the name of Cenk Uygur of TYT as a candidate to be an anti-loon. Although Cenk fights Islamophobia he is guilty of another lunacy i.e., denying the Armenian Genocide. So Cenk is no better than a holocaust denier like David Irving or a Bosnian genocide denier like Robert Spencer.

  16. JT Says:

    Garibaldi, I think :/ is talking about William Coley, a Muslim-American member of the Tea Party. As :/ pointed out, Coley has been trying to present Islam in the best manner to other conversatives and Tea Party activists. He is also the director of Muslims for Liberty.

    Robert Spencer attacked Coley and another Muslim libertarian, Davi Barker, here:
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/muslims-for-liberty.html

    If I remember correctly, both of them have been featured on Loonwatch before.

  17. Richard Silverstein Says:

    Thanks so much for including me on the List. I’m honored. BTW, the list is a great idea!

  18. Adam Says:

    Spencer Ackerman, Glenn Greenwald and Richard Silverstien, max blumathal(blah spelling)

  19. Wow Says:

    Wow, you have named all the “destroy Israel, and blame zionists for every bad thing in the world” lunatic bloogers and called them anti-loons.

    Max Blumenthal, Richard Silverstein, etc. are deranged anti-Israel, hate activists. These are not good people

  20. Senor Says:

    Wish you would have put on Dick Durbin for being a voice of reason during Peter King’s hearings.

  21. Ahmed Says:

    How about Bob Pitt from islamophobia-watch.com? He has worked tirelessly, like every year, to fight the bigots.

  22. Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32) Warning Contains Irony Says:

    SAD Ahmad
    I agree with you on this one . Thats the way ahead .
    ( not sure about the 19 million though )

  23. Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad a-Amriki Says:

    So Cenk is no better than a holocaust denier like David Irving or a Bosnian genocide denier like Robert Spencer.

    David Irving is not a “Holocaust denier.” Like Norman Finkelstein, Irving says “There’s no business like Shoah business,” and like Finkelstein, brings embarrassing facts to light. Finkelstein brings facts from his parents, who were Holocaust survivors; Irving brings facts from Nazi archives removed from Berlin by Stalin while Patton’s army was being kept from taking the city ~ archives that no other western historian had been allowed to see before Irving established himself in the West as the recognized leading authority on the details of World War II. It was after Irving started disclosing facts from the Nazi archives in Soviet hands that he became a “Holocaust denying anti-Semite neo-Nazi” in the western media.

    Irving does not “deny” the Holocaust. He proves it.

    You should educate yourself before you repeat libelous accusations and slanders as if you knew what you were talking about. That would set you apart from the loons.

  24. The_BigT Says:

    I think you should add Keith Olbermann of Current.com (formerly MSNBC) he has a whole segment of his show dedicated to fighting Islamophobia.
    Lowes CEO was named worst person Twice on his show, that says alot

    http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/category/worst-persons

  25. The_BigT Says:

    http://current.com/shows/countdown/blog/fear-the-turkey-david-shuster-takes-on-pamela-gellers-comments-about-halal-turkeys-for-thanksgiving

    a well written article on Crazy Pams “HALAL TURKY JIHAD”

  26. mindy1 Says:

    @Wow, what makes you say they are haters?? Liking Muslim people does not make you a hater

  27. Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32) Warning Contains Irony Says:

    WOW
    I suppose you would think Pam Geller alais Mrs MacBeth a good person then ?
    Your evidence for these people being not good is …..they are against the zionists and all they stand for . I think round these parts you are in the distinct minority on that one .
    So how about proving to us all that zionism is a good thing ?

  28. Inspired by Mohammad Says:

    Wow

    Wow, you have named all the “destroy Israel, and blame zionists for every bad thing in the world” lunatic bloogers and called them anti-loons.

    If you want to find those, look at Loon Watch commenters eg. DrM a hood who blames everything from his diarreah to his inferiority complex on Zionists.

    Max Blumenthal, Richard Silverstein, etc. are deranged anti-Israel, hate activists. These are not good people

    Your proof? You won’t find any. You slander them. They’re good Islamophobia fighters too. What is your definition of anti Israel? They are left wing Zionists. They support the two state solution, and both are pro Israel. So unless you oppose that, how can you call them anti Israel. They know what they talk about, and they give you facts, not conspiracies and lies, and propoganda.

    I certainly think Max Blumenthal should have been on the list, and glad Sheila Musaji is there, and Cenk Uygur maybe should be on the honorary list, though he attacks the rightists, i didnd’t like his diatrabe against The Prophet. And though I like Keith Ellison a lot, I mean come on…he is a politician. He can hardly not be on an anti loon list,

    It’s a touch choice..I like Greenweld, and Snow, and Rehab, and all the others are worthy, but if there is to be one vote each for one person, then I vote for …the Fear Inc. report compilers, whomever was the biggest contributor, Eli Clifton or Wajahat Ali.

    That is because in the Islamophobia world, that had the biggest impact this year.

  29. Garibaldi Says:

    @Ahmed, you are right, Bob Pitt deserves to be recognized!

  30. khushboo Says:

    For now I will vote for Russell Simmons for having the courage to not just speak out against bigotry but spend millions of $$ from his own pocket to keep the show, “All American Muslim” going and he’s not even a Muslim! Thank you Russel!

  31. khushboo Says:

    Let’s not forget Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas who spoke out against Rep. Peter King’s hearings saying it’s discriminating against Muslims.

  32. Garibaldi Says:

    All the congressmen/women who spoke out at the Peter King Hearings have been grouped together above. They should be named however, they deserve as much.

  33. Believing Atheist Says:

    @Shaykh,

    Shaykh, I take back my earlier praise of you. I used to respect you because I thought you were a erudite and scholar. It seems now you spew propaganda and are not concerned with facts. If David Irving does not deny the Holocaust, why was he jailed for Holocaust denial? This article states he himself admitted to denying the holocaust. Why should I believe you over him?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/20/austria.thefarright

  34. Inspired by Mohammad Says:

    I must admit I hadn’t heard of Bob Pitt. Though I do know Islamophobia Watch. Does anyone know anything about him? If he is not a a Muslim
    we do owe him a debt of thanks as he does have a fine website. For sure he should be on the anti loon list. Damn, the choice get’s harder the more there are.

    Why is he so low key then?

  35. Inspired by Mohammad Says:

    Hey Garibaldi,

    I just had an idea, guess who you missed,and who should be on the anti loon list,

    President Barack Hussein Obama :)

    Imagine if he won the votes here, I would imagine his response would be the same as when he received his Nobel Prize, ‘I feel I did not deserve it”

    The Islamophobic blogosphere will then be spinning like a top…..LOL

  36. Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad a-Amriki Says:

    BelievingAtheist writes: Shaykh, I take back my earlier praise of you.

    Good for you. All praise is due to God, not to any of us who are His creations. I certainly have neither need nor desire for any misdirected praise.

    But by your own reasoning, you will forevermore be known as a “Shaykh praiser,” even though you have corrected your views. That’s the standard you apply to Irving, who twenty years ago denied some elements of the Holocaust but corrected himself “after seeing the personal files of Adolf Eichmann,” according to the article you cited as “evidence.”

    Do you actually read the “authoritative” writings you cite as evidence, or do you just skim over them looking for bits and pieces that “prove” your opinions?

  37. bboyblue Says:

    I’d like to offer a name that might not be familiar to readers outside of the UK.

    Tariq Jahan

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/11/tariq-jahan-first-generation-muslim-migrant

    During the August riots Tariq’s son Haroon along with many other local people guarded businesses & properties from looters & vandals. He and two friends were killed in a hit and run in the process. Tensions were running high and people wanted revenge. What Jahan did next eventually won him the Pride of Britain Award.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/10/06/pride-of-britain-winner-tariq-jahan-i-want-to-make-sure-my-son-did-not-die-in-vain-115875-23469814/

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLwr3hWFPb8&feature=related

    “I have lost my son – if you want to lose yours step forward, otherwise calm down and go home.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLwr3hWFPb8&feature=related

    “Brothers, there is no march,” he said.

    “We don’t want a march. Why, what’s the march for? Where in the name of Islam (is there a call to march for the dead)? I’m not going nowhere. If you guys want to walk, go hiking. Don’t do it in the name of our sons, no.”

    He wasn’t an activist or journalist, just a working class father who’d lost his son. Whilst the EDL were throwing bottles at police & harassing black people, the hero, the voice of reason of the riots was a middle aged Muslim man.

  38. Believing Atheist Says:

    @Shaykh,

    Shaykh, the real question is: Did you read the article in its entirety?

    Because the article stated that Irving was simply using a ploy a defense mechanism in admitting portions of the Holocaust.

    It stated: “The prosecution, however, had accused Irving of changing his position as a “tactic” to escape a harsh sentence, and said the historian was an icon for neo-Nazis and revisionists around the world.”

    And do you know how I know this?

    Because in 2008, (the article was written in 2006), one of the candidates to be an anti-loon on Loonwatch, Max Blumenthal interviewed Irving and he still denied the Holocaust. Watch the video below in its entirety and Blumenthal gets Irving to say that he denies the term Holocaust:

  39. JT Says:

    I agree with bboyblue, Tariq Jahan should definitely be up there. His moving speech after his son’s death in the UK riots earlier this year were believed to have averted further race-related violence in Birmingham. He was universally praised for that, and made it known that Muslims are not looking for violence or to cause trouble.

    I have seen a few comments on news websites where people admit that they had negative views of Muslims before but seeing Tariq Jahan appealing for calm has made them change their mind.

  40. Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad a-Amriki Says:

    B.A. continues: Shaykh, the real question is: Did you read the article in its entirety?

    Very carefully, more than twice.

    Because the article stated that Irving was simply using a ploy a defense mechanism in admitting portions of the Holocaust.

    It stated: “The prosecution, however, had accused Irving of changing his position as a “tactic” to escape a harsh sentence, and said the historian was an icon for neo-Nazis and revisionists around the world.”

    The article stated that the prosecutor accused Irving of pretending to have changed his views. Of course the prosecutor would say that. The court obviously did not agree, sentencing Irving to three years (of which he served one) instead of ten years.

    And do you know how I know this?

    I certainly see how you transform your impressions and opinions into facts in your own mind to support your prejudices and false judgments.

    Because in 2008, (the article was written in 2006), one of the candidates to be an anti-loon on Loonwatch, Max Blumenthal interviewed Irving and he still denied the Holocaust. Watch the video in its entirety and Blumenthal gets Irving to say that he denies the term Holocaust.

    A very interesting YouTube video ~ thank you. I appreciate that, even though I had to watch it three times to actually hear what Irving was saying. It answered some questions I had had about some allegations against him that were ~ as I had suspected that they could be ~ false.

    Irving denies the term “holocaust,” which technically is not accurate. A “holocaust” (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, “whole” and kaustós, “burnt”) is a literal fire that burns the entirety of a thing so that only ash is left. The corresponding Hebrew term denotes a more complete consumption by fire, in which nothing at all remains ~ not ashes, residue, or anything else, not even scorch marks or stains. Irving agrees that millions of Jewish people were murdered during World War II, but is technically correct in saying that this was not a “holocaust” ~ it is the term, not the event, that Irving denies. And it is his denial that the mass murder of Jews ~ which he proves, from Nazi records, occurred ~ was a “holocaust” that draws the rage of the zionists.

    There is a reason for this. Not all Jews believe there has been any such holocaust. The religious legitimacy of “Israel” as a sovereign nation in the former Kingdom of David depends on fulfillment of a prophecy that “Six million [Jews] will be consumed by fire.” According to this belief, Israel will not be “redeemed” from its rebellious, recalcitrant, and renegade history until this “redemptive sacrifice” is made, and Israel cannot be reconstituted as a nation in The Promised Land, between “the River Jordan and the Great Sea,” until it has been redeemed by this sacrifice of a “holocaust” of six million Jews. For a person who believes he is Jewish to return from the Diaspora to the lands of ancient Israel, to claim sovereign authority over the land and its people, before Israel is redeemed, is to continue rebellion against God and choose damnation over redemption.

    Some believe that the Nazis killed six million Jews, and that this was that “holocaust” ~ the redemptive sacrifice ~ that is a Sign that God has given His permission for the Israelis to return to the former kingdom of David and rule in it. They gather there to await their Mashiach, who is expected to raise Israel over the nations as the global sovereign.

    Some do not believe that, but believe that no matter how many Jews the Nazis killed, it was not “Six million consumed by fire” and was not the redemptive sacrifice. They do not consider modern “Israel” to be legitimate, and refuse to support the zionists.

    Thus anyone who expresses any doubt that the millions of Jews killed by the Nazis were that “holocaust,” however their opinion might differ in any respect or detail of the zionist “article of faith” that it was the Sign of Israel’s redemption, is either a “self-hating Jew” or “a Holocaust denier” and an “enemy of the Jews.”

    Irving does not believe that six million Jew were “consumed by fire.” History agrees. Zionists, who “interpret” the word “fire” to “symbolize” (or mean) “war,” and do not think that clear Signs are only manifested when their literal terms are fulfilled, don’t care about indisputable history. Irving is thus called a “Holocaust denier” because ~ and only because ~ he considers the term “holocaust” inappropriate.

    Which you would know had you read the article and watched the video without your blinders.

    Was the World War II “Holocaust” the Sign from God, obvious to everyone, of Israel’s redemption?

    Well, shucks ~ I hadn’t been born yet, and I didn’t see it, so I don’t know whether it was obvious to everyone or not. Not that it makes any difference to me ~ I’m not Jewish, and was never in need of redemption like Israel at least was. All of the Jewish people I’ve known in seventy years, with maybe as many as three exceptions, have not seemed to me to be among the damned, but what do I know? I’m not Jewish.

    What about you? Do the Jewish people of the Jewish state in The Promised Land appear to have been “redeemed” from their history of genocide, deception, apostasy, denial, and general mayhem?

  41. Believing Atheist Says:

    @Shaykh,

    Shaykh asked: “What about you? Do the Jewish people of the Jewish state in The Promised Land appear to have been “redeemed” from their history of genocide, deception, apostasy, denial, and general mayhem?”

    No. I don’t believe in that redemption because I don’t believe in the Jewish Yahweh speaking through mythological prophets and forecasting a redeeming Messiah. God cannot redeem us, because He (I am personifying God in the masculine for lack of a better pronoun), does not exist.

    Many Israelis know this and that is why many prominent Zionist leaders such as Golda Meir were atheists.

    All religions are man-made inventions. All gods are imaginary friends. If you choose to believe in an imaginary friend, that’s fine and I will respect that because it is harmless to me, just as belief in the Easter bunny or Santa Claus is.

    But I do believe that Israel as a state has a right to exist as does Palestine.

  42. Géji Says:

    @Inspired by Muhammad says: > “Hey Garibaldi, I just had an idea, guess who you missed, and who should be on the anti loon list, President Barack Hussein Obama”

    Unfortunately for him, last I’ve checked Barack “Hussein” Obama is still quite happily continuing the massacre of Muslims overseas and using the various secret torture chambers, and not so secret Gitmos of this world, therefore “Bush the 3rd” or “Black-Bush” has no place in this list, he’s not welcomed.

    > “Imagine if he won the votes here, I would imagine his response would be the same as when he received his Nobel Prize, ‘I feel I did not deserve it””

    And he’s 1000000000% right when he said he did not “deserve it”, for it was astonishingly stupid to give a Nobel Peace prize to a man who haven’t even done anything yet, nor proved nothing, other that cheesy-sweet rhetorics. But I guess the last laugh must belong to the ridiculous Nobel prize committee, for he has prove them wrong on all accounts by not only being a Bush-follow-up warmonger and ethnic cleansing supporter, but actually proving to them that his rhetorics were actually nothing more but cheesy rhetorics that have lost their superficial magic soon as he was seated as President of the “free world” USA, who can no longer fool the world. So I seriously wonder who this guy will win a second term, with his only weapon “the rhetoric” no longer working, but I guess the other candidates being awfully far worse, who knows? I feel sorry for the American people, who have no choice but between Dumb/Warmonger and Dumber/Warmongers. Such is the state of world politics and so-called democracies today.

    > “The Islamophobic blogosphere will then be spinning like a top…..LOL”

    There’s nothing to “LOL” about, I’ll take any day an unaggressive Islamophobe over a warmonger and ethnic cleansing supporter Barack Hussein Obama.

  43. Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32) Warning Contains Irony Says:

    SAD Ahmad
    Just to be clear you say that David Irvine believes
    1 The Nazi’s did kill x number of jews ( and others) . Where x is a very big number in the millions, in work camps, gas chambers , death camps or just shot them out of hand
    2 He does not like the term holocaust because of its phrophetic qualities or because it means they were burned to ashes .

    So his issues are sementic not historic

  44. Inspired by Mohammad Says:

    Shaykh said:

    Like Norman Finkelstein, Irving says “There’s no business like Shoah business,” and like Finkelstein, brings embarrassing facts to light. Finkelstein brings facts from his parents, who were Holocaust survivors; Irving brings facts from Nazi archives

    Norman Finklestein on David Irving:

    http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?ar=99&pg=11

    Ok, if you ask me what I think of David Irving… listen, young man, I can give you the politically correct answer and say “he’s terrible, he’s this and he’s that.” Personally, I don’t like the fellow. I think he is a Nazi. However, I have to be fair. And I want you to listen. Fairness means: A) I’m not an authority on the topic on which he writes. Mostly on military history, [audience noise, talking] on the German side, during WW2. Number two, [audience noise, talking] historians who are authorities on him have given mixed ratings. Gordon Craig, one of the leading historians on Germany in the US who writes regularly for the New York Review of Books, Gordon Craig wrote, “his contributions are indespensible.” I can’t change that. I cannot say Gordon Craig is wrong. You know why I can’t do it? Because I’m humble enough to say: I-Don’t-Know. John Keagan, one of the leading military historians in the UK, when he testified in the Irving Lipstad [spelling?] trial, he testified on his side, on Irving’s side, as being a good historian. So I can only report to you what other historians have said. And so in the book, in the Holocaust Industry, I wrote that Gordon Craig said that his contributions, his meaning Irving’s, are indespensible and that became “Finkelstein says Irving is an indespensable historian.” Well, I didn’t say it. And I just don’t know. What I do know is that, at this point, I totally here.. in this point… and I hope you will listen, I totally agree with John Stweart Mill. I teach Mill every quarter of whenever I teach. I love Mill’s On Liberty. One of the things Mill says in On liberty, he says that the most useful person in society, in trying to uncover ideas, is the devil’s advocate because the devil’s advocate is always trying to find holes in your argument and trying to find errors in your facts. Now, the devil’s advocate is a devil. That’s why he or she is called a devil’s advocate but he or she serves the useful purpose of trying to find errors in your reasoning, errors in your facts. That is to say, as Mill puts it, he or she, even if he or she is a devil, he or she is trying to help you find the truth. Now, may be his or her motives are evil, incidious, malicious or wicked but it makes no difference because by looking for errors in your arguments he or she is helping you — unwittingly no doubt — but helping you to find truth. And so I think, and I can imagine how it’s gonna be distorted, I think people like David Irving serve a good function in society.

  45. Believing Atheist Says:

    I have another candidate to add to the list. Rais Bhuyan, the Muslim who forgave his attacker and potential killer, Mark Stroman and pleaded with the government not to kill Stroman. Read about him at Huff Post
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/18/rais-bhuiyan-pleads-to-spare-mark-stroman_n_902137.html

    I think Bhuyan exemplifies that true principles of Islam, namely forgiveness and mercy.

  46. Stephen G. Parker Says:

    @ Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad a-Amriki – That was an excellent response to the accusations of “Believing Atheist”.

    @ Believing Atheist – When you asked why David Irving had been jailed for Holocaust denial if he didn’t actually deny the Holocaust, I was reminded of an anecdote a former boss told. He had been summoned for jury duty, and was being questioned to ascertain his fitness to serve on the jury. When asked if he had already formed an opinion as to the innocence or guilt of the accused, he responded that of course he was guilty. If he wasn’t, the city’s fine policemen would not have arrested him! Of course, my boss was excused from jury duty – which was just what he wanted.

    But you’ll say that it wasn’t just that Mr. Irving was arrested for the ‘crime’ of Holocaust denial; he was found guilty by a jury, and given a jail sentence. So would you assert that no jury has never been swayed by spurious arguments of ‘golden tongued’ prosecutors resulting in wrongful convictions? Everyone who is convicted in a court of law is in fact actually guilty because the jury couldn’t possibly have been mistaken?

    But I believe the real question regarding David Irving’s conviction for Holocaust denial is not whether or not he’s ‘guilty’ of the ‘crime’; it’s why it should even be considered ‘criminal’ at all to disagree with the ‘official story’ about that historical event or any other historical event. Should it be ‘crimiinal’ for people to deny that 19 Muslim terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks? Is it ‘criminal’ for Cenk Uygur to believe that the evidence is against the idea of the “Armenian Genocide”?

    If people are so certain that the “Holocaust” took place, why are they SO afraid for someone to bring ‘evidence’ denying the event that they make it ‘criminal’ to do so? It certainly would seem that the affirmers are really not so certain themselves if they’re afraid of the questioners.

    I’m no historian, and have no access to original documents; so I don’t know whether the ‘official story’ of the ‘Holocaust’ is all true, all false, or a mixture of truth and falsehood. But David Irving is a historian; and unlike most who go by that title, David made painstaking efforts to go to the original sources themselves rather than simply depend on what other ‘historians’ had said about WWII. He examined the letters and diaries of the participants in those historical events, and did interviews with some of them who were still alive. If he calls into question at least some of the ‘official’ positions on anything to do with WWII, it’s because he has solid evidence to back him up. It that’s not ‘popular’ that’s not his fault. If other historians disagree with him, let them present their own original source evidence – not just quote each other in order to castigate Mr. Irving.

    Like any good scientist or historian, he is open to change his opinion when new original source evidence surfaces that either qualifies or contradicts previously known evidence. That is what happened with David’s views on the ‘Holocaust’. He still doesn’t find the word itself acceptable, but he revised his views on some of the events covered by that label. A cynical prosecutor may consider that revision of opinion just a ‘tactic’ to evade the ‘penalty’ for holding ‘criminal opinions’; but his cynicism doesn’t make it a fact.

    I am glad that in the USA we have embedded in our Constitution the principles of freedom of speech and of the press. If we follow our Constitutional principles, we will welcome (not criminalize) any investigation into the truth or falsehood of ‘official’ versions of history. If those ‘official’ versions turn out to be lying propaganda, we will honor those who expose the lies. If the investigations wind up proving the commonly accepted version, we’ll honor the investigators who verified the ‘official story’ also. Meanwhile, we’ll let all ‘sides’ in the controversy continue to present their evidence without threat of legal action against them – or vilification for merely seeking to verify or disprove commonly held ideas.

    Otherwise, the next thing you know, it will be ‘criminal’ for someone to assert that George Washington did not cut down the cherry tree as a boy, and then admit his guilt to his father. :lol: Or any historian who says that Billy the Kid was not killed by Pat Garret – rather, he and Pat arranged a deception so Billy could change his name and make a new life for himself – will be jailed. Those who assert that Davy Crockett was not killed at the Alamo, but rather was captured by the Mexican soldiers and died in captivity, will also be jailed. That, of course, is simply silly; but so is the criminalization of David Irving and others for questioning the ‘politically correct’ version of the ‘Holocaust’.

    [Related to this topic, I watched a short video yesterday in which a reporter was trying to corner Iran's President Ahmadinejad into saying outright whether or not he believed in the 'Holocaust'. Mr. Ahmadinejad would not be cornered, though. He said he wasn't a historian, so he was not qualified to give an opinion. What he would like to know, though, was: IF the 'Holocaust' was a true historical event, what did that have to do with the Palestinians? Since it was German Nazis who perpetrated the horror (assuming it took place), why were the Palestinians being punished for something they didn't do? I say, very good point, Mr. Ahmadinejad.]

  47. Stephen G. Parker Says:

    Aw shucks. In the 3rd paragraph of my last comment, I said: “So would you assert that no jury has never been swayed by spurious arguments…” “Never”, of course, should be “ever”.

  48. Inspired by Mohammad Says:

    Geiji

    Whilst I don’t disagree with many of the things you mentioned, I think you’re being a bit unfair on Obama when we put things into context, especially when you say:

    I’ll take any day an unaggressive Islamophobe over a warmonger and ethnic cleansing supporter Barack Hussein Obama.

    The reason being Obama INHERITED these problems. He came in with wars going on. But the relevancy here is, what would the ‘unaggressive Islamophobe’ do if he had inherited the Presidency as did Obama? That would have been a fair comparison, not the one you made. We are giving points and voting for anti Loons.

    If you judge Obama by what he has done to build bridges with the Muslims world, like the other politicians on the list, he has made an effort, he went to Cairo, for example, Granted he could do much better, but he is a politician, that is why i objected to Keith Ellison being on the list.

    I for one, don’t think politicians should be on the list, as i said above partly for this reason, and partly because politicians HAVE to make good and mend fences with those facing persecution and trouble. Or to put it another way, if Keith Ellison (whom i like immensly) could be on the list, why shouldn’t Obama be. That was the only context.

    Remember if you had been voted President, you would not have been able to immediately withdraw all troops. You have to face the reality of the situation, and not hold one man to an impossible standard as you did.

    A president cannot be compared to a blogger or journalist or other activists who are judged soley by what they themselves have done from SCRATCH, and not made do with what they inherited.

    This brings me to an intrigueing question, despite my disappointment in Obama, why do I still like him? Does anyone else feel the same way? Disappointed, but still like Obama? It doesn’t make sense.

  49. Believing Atheist Says:

    @Stephen Parker,

    1. Stephen wrote: He still doesn’t find the word itself acceptable, but he revised his views on some of the events covered by that label.
    My answer: If Irving denies the word Holocaust, as an appropriate term to label the mass massacre of Jews in Europe during WW2 then I am right. All I said was that he is a Holocaust denier and he admitted that he denies this term to Max Blumenthal.
    2. Stephen Continuing: “But I believe the real question regarding David Irving’s conviction for Holocaust denial is not whether or not he’s ‘guilty’ of the ‘crime’; it’s why it should even be considered ‘criminal’ at all to disagree with the ‘official story’ about that historical event or any other historical event. Should it be ‘crimiinal’ for people to deny that 19 Muslim terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks? Is it ‘criminal’ for Cenk Uygur to believe that the evidence is against the idea of the “Armenian Genocide”?”

    My answer: Stephen that’s just a red-herring, and an imposition of words in my mouth. I never said that it should be criminal to deny the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide and certainly not in the U.S., because such speech is Constitutionally protected speech. The larger question is this however, Stephen: Why doesn’t the Muslim world uphold the same principles you preach? Why was there a riot over pictorial depictions of your prophet? In fact why can’t we draw and ridicule your prophet in the Muslim world? Why are the Satanic Verses and the works of Taslima Nasrin banned in many Muslim countries? Why did Salman Rushdie have a fatwa against him for writing a satire?

    Do you condemn such restriction of free thought in the Muslim world? Yes or no?

    I anticipate your answers. I have a New Years Party to catch and will write back soon.

  50. Inspired by Mohammad Says:

    Stephen Parker

    Since it was German Nazis who perpetrated the horror (assuming it took place), why were the Palestinians being punished for something they didn’t do? I say, very good point, Mr. Ahmadinejad.

    Ahmedinejad’s flaw, is that he links the two together. The Jews were returning to British controlled Palestine long before WW2 and Emir Faisal facilited their return. The Caliphate never prevented Jews from living anywhere within it’s territories, though there were bans and restrictions due to political upheavals. It was a British divide and conquer ruse, to leave Israel and what should have been Palestine fighting, much like they did with Kashmir, to leave India and Pakistan fighting.

    The ruling powers of the time were the British. They accept responsiblity for this mess. That is why Tony Blair took the position of the envoy in Jerusalem to bring about a settlement to the conflict and two secuare states for both Israeli’s and Palestinians.

    There is ample evidence to support the Holocaust. It happened. End of story. Gypsies and other undesirables were victims of the nazis. The Bosnian Holocaust happened too though there are those who like Irving seek to question ‘the numbers’ so they can diminish it’s significance because they are Muslim haters.

    Has David Irving bothered to look into any of the other Holocausts? It is so obvious he only focusus on the Nazi Holocaust so that he can look for ways to exonerate the Nazis. When even Norman Finkelstein says he doesn’t like Irving because he thinks he is a Nazi, it is safe to question the motives of those who feel the need to use David Irving as a scholar.

    Anyway, back to the point, mistakes were made then, how Israel came into being was not ideal, but if you look at the historical set up then, and the fact that no country or land came into existence by being handed over on a silver platter.

    You are correct that Palestinians were victims, and Israel should right that wrong now by compensation, or whatever is decided in the peace talks, but it is too simplistic and one could say agenda driven to hold Jews to a different standard when it comes to nation building.

    But people who only concentrate on how Israel is treating the Palestinian without questioning why Jordan or Lebanon havn’t given equality to their Palestinians, or that Kuwait expelled her Palestinians should be asked why they practice the bigotry of low expectation. For a Muslim, they should be holding the Muslim to a higher standard than they do anyone else. Sorry if this sounds supremacist, but I expect Muslims to be better than Christians and Jews and other because our moral code is better than theirs. If you hold Israel to a higer standard, as you and Shaykh seem to be doing then it means you consider Jews to be better morally than Muslims.

    You and Shaykh, don’t you both live in a country that was ethnically cleansed from it’s natives the red indians? A cynic could retort to both your claims by asking you, is Israel’s only crime that it didn’t do what your country America did and kill the people already living there? In that case, Israel certainly betters America. How about that?

  51. DrM Says:

    Inspired by Ariel Sharon said :

    “f you want to find those, look at Loon Watch commenters eg. DrM a hood who blames everything from his diarreah to his inferiority complex on Zionists. ”

    Says the Zionist gutter snipe who justified the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians on the basis of the Native Indians decimation. Inferiority complex talk coming from a troll who has a new name each week. Gotta love the irony.

  52. Hajj Dawud Says:

    Sir David writes: Just to be clear you say that David Irvine believes
    1 The Nazi’s did kill x number of jews (and others). Where x is a very big number in the millions, in work camps, gas chambers, death camps or just shot them out of hand
    2 He does not like the term holocaust because of its prophetic qualities or because it means they were burned to ashes.

    The most recent views I’ve read or heard from him, or unprejudicially attributed to him, are:

    1. that the Nazis killed millions of Jews along with millions of others
    2. that the term holocaust, which means literally burned completely to ashes, is inaccurate when used to refer to those millions of murders
    3. that no one was killed by gas chamber at Auschwitz
    4. that Hitler himself (a) provided Czech arms to the Israeli army, (b) trained and sent able-bodied Jewish soldiers to Palestine, and (c) was not aware of the murders by Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich of millions of Jews reported to Hitler as “in labor camps” or “deported”

    Based on my own independent study and research, I cannot fault Irvine’s views 1, 2, or 3, can affirm 4(a) and 4(b), and differ over 4(c). I think there is no evidence that Hitler knew what Himmler was doing, I cannot conclude that Hitler did not know. Those are my opinions, not conclusions, based on what I have considered credible of what others have written or said.

    I have most of Irving’s books, in digital formats from his website ten or so years ago. I have no way of knowing whether these digital editions are accurate copies of the published paper editions. I read most of what I have, ten years ago, when I decided that I wanted to know as much as I could find out about the war during which I was born. I also read most of the more prominent “Revisionist” books, along with historical works about the first world war and about the “Holocaust denier” controversies of the last thirty years of the Twentieth Century. I do not consider myself an “expert” on any of it, but I do believe I am more informed about this garbage dump than is the average turnip.

    It appears that the Nazis murdered a lot of Jewish people. That may or may not have satisfied the “redemption of Israel” demands of the Talmudic prophecies. World War II was a nasty business, and war propaganda was falsified on all sides before, during, and after the war. I know a lot more than I wanted to know, and am thankful that I am not responsible for passing judgment on any of the actors on any side, I could not do that even were I called upon to do that. I do agree that it was necessary to stop Hitler and Hirohito’s generals, and am of the opinion that it could not have been done without America’s dedication to religious liberty. I am not alone in disliking how it was done. It was not a war between or among gentlemen, and I think Hitler’s decision to commit suicide had nothing to do with losing the war, but was his refusal to live in the world as it had become.

    So his issues are semantic not historic.

    Oh, I think the history is what bothers him. Those four issues above are trivial except for zionist Israelis. Whether the Nazis killed one or ten million, what to call mass murder, how murder was committed at one place or another, and who knew what ~ these are just marks on a dead horse. What matters is that the horse is dead, not what or who killed it or how. God knows who made a free choice that ultimately killed the horse, and whether that choice filled a cup of iniquities. God can raise up the horse ~ I can’t.

  53. HGG Says:

    “; it’s why it should even be considered ‘criminal’ at all to disagree with the ‘official story’ about that historical event or any other historical event. Should it be ‘crimiinal’ for people to deny that 19 Muslim terrorists carried out the 9/11 attacks? Is it ‘criminal’ for Cenk Uygur to believe that the evidence is against the idea of the “Armenian Genocide”?”

    Not. Not criminal. Nor deserving of jail time.

    Deplorable? Yes. Unworthy of consideration? Ridiculed? Dismissed? Ostracized?

    Definitely.

    But not criminal. No.

  54. Carlos Roa Says:

    I’m really having difficulty understanding why longtime human rights activist Muhammed Malik from Miami, Florida is not on this list. Nationally, Muhammed has been one of the most outspoken anti-defamation activists and one of the strongest young Muslim leaders, who’s been subject to attack by anti-Muslim extremist organizations for defending the rights of his people. As an activist myself, I cordially implore that he be listed also. I strongly encourage others to also request his nomination, especially considering that Florida has often been described as the most “islamophobic” state in the country. Check out at the end of this article how Muhammed responded to fear-mongering wingnuts: http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/article1205835.ece

    - Carlos A. Roa | Trail2010.org

  55. Juan A. Morales Says:

    I would like to reccommend Muhammad Malik, one of the foremost activists of South Florida, to your list of defenders of sanity. He is a young Muslim grass-roots organizer whose effective political work has made him the target of bigotted attacks from right wing hate mongers.

    It is prescient that his efforts towards social justice be recognized by the progressive community and not only by the islamophobes of the right.

  56. Jimmy Paulo Says:

    Nowadays, I am glad that lists/websites like this exists. But, what i can not understand is why you do not include a long activists and human rights defender like Muhammed Malik from Miami, Florida. I have know him always fighting for the rights of others and he is undeniably a great asset in this fight for equal rights for everyone regardless of who you are and what you look like. Muhammed Malik has made his life duty to protect the rights of the muslim community and i can not understand why his name is not in this prestigious list of fighters and activists. Justice needs to be served by adding Muhammed Malik and by following his activism and love for the human kind. Please consider adding him immediately, if not sooner.

  57. patches Says:

    I too would like to vouch for my friend Muhammad Malik, an Occupy Miami activist who has been assailed with death threats from countless far right blogs and websites for being guilty of “political organizing while muslim,” ex:

    http://paybackproject.com/2011/12/occupymiami-organizer-affiliated-with-hamas-tells-jews-go-back-to-the-oven/

  58. Veronica from Sarasota, Fl. Says:

    Muhammed Malik, long time human rights activist from Florida, must be included in this list. Thanks Muhammed for all you do to fight hatemongers here in Florida.

  59. Inspired by Mohammad Says:

    DrM

    Says the Zionist gutter snipe who justified the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians on the basis of the Native Indians decimation. Inferiority complex talk coming from a troll who has a new name each week. Gotta love the irony.

    DrM you are the one with the inferiority complex. The irony of someone likeyou talking of ethnic cleansing whilst living on ethnically cleansed land, is the height of hypocricy. You don’t allow dissenting comments at your blog when anyone tries to expose your LIES and moral bankruptcy and total ignorance of Middle East history. You’re too busy sticking your head up Hinduvta’s ass

    Besides can you not read? Ad hominem attacks and name calling is all that hood like you has to offer. Back to your cesspool.

  60. Juan A. Morales Says:

    Learn more about Muhammed Malik here: http://www.constitutioncampaign.org/blog/?p=1444#.TwCfdXqIqWc

  61. New Yorker Says:

    I would add Max Blumenthal, Justin and Andrea Elliot, and Muhammed Malik of Miami.

  62. C. Schulz Says:

    Muhammed Malik should be added to this list! I follow him on facebook and his posts are thought-provoking and insightful. The work he does in South Florida and the rights he supports are inspiring.

    Learn more about Muhammed Malik here -

    Combating Islamophobia in Florida: An Interview With Muhammed Malik- 2011 – ” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/malik_interview.html

    Al Jazeera Coverage on anti-sharia hysteria: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/03/2011329195150913510.html

    Miami’s Peaceful Response to Quran Burning – http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Miamis-Peaceful-Response-to-Koran-Burning-102422564.html

    Muslim Group Heads to Tallahassee; Anti-Muslim Group Stokes Fear – http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2010/03/cair_muslim_capital_day_florida_security_council.php

    “Muhammed Malik, winner of 2011 Patriot Award for Civil Rights” – http://www.constitutioncampaign.org/blog/?p=1444

  63. justin Says:

    i agree. i’d appreciate any help to that end – muhammed is very politically active and visible in florida, and this place is not exactly known for its lack of extremists.

  64. Pablo Avendano Says:

    Hey, I would like to suggest that my longtime friend, human rights activist Muhammed Malik from Miami, be added to this list. Muhammd has taken a lot of heat down here for his defense of Muslims, immigrants, civil liberties and a whole host of just causes. I know he may not be as well known in the media or academia, but he deserves a place on your list. Thanks.

  65. Inspired by Mohammad Says:

    Hajji Dawud, and Shaykh

    Can you two explain your relationship and why you both feel the need to David Irving here?

    Loon Watch something isn’t right here, you approve comments, yet allow comments that you don’t or wouldn’t at one time? Has this website changed ownership or what?

    I think it is about time, we found out who or what is behind Loon Watch.

    What do you others think?

  66. Andrea Nunez Says:

    Someone very important and committed to fighting Islamophobia missing from the list is Muhammed Malik from Miami, FL. Muhammed has fought hard for the civil liberties of many in our community for years as a recognized civil rights activist. He has shown his dedication for a just society for all as part of the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida, combating racial profiling by law enforcement authorities and focusing on racial justice. Muhammed should definitely be added to the 2011 list. He is an inspiration to many that know him.

    For more info on Muhammed:
    http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Miamis-Peaceful-Response-to-Koran-Burning-102422564.html
    http://www.constitutioncampaign.org/blog/?p=1444#.TwCg91aQKf8

  67. Larry Yates Says:

    In general, I would hope that you would list those who are most at risk, and who are least known, and so could gain the most from being added to this list.

    I have two suggestions along these lines — one is Muhammad Malik, already mentioned, who is very active on multiple social justice issues in Florida, very much a frontline fighter. He brings a Muslim (Kashmiri) perspective to the ACLU, Occupy, LGBT and other fights that sometimes lack it, but as one in the struggle, not an outside critic.

    I also hope you will consider the good folks at Rights Working Group, who are, in a smart and effective way, building a national campaign against racial, ethnic and religious profiling that is inclusive of immigrants and Muslims and African-Americans and Latinos (and others) — groups that face the same oppressive state but have different histories that often divide them.

  68. Austin Belali Says:

    I think the list is great but I agrees that Flordia is the ground zero for soon many of the attacks one muslim families. That being said, I was surprised that Muhammad Malik in Miami wasn’t included. I am encouraged that soon many other activists agrees that the Southwest needs to been a focus of our work.

  69. Noor Fawzy Says:

    I am astonishingly surprised to find out that South Florida-based activist Muhammed Malik is not on this list. An affiliate of the Miami-based Green Party and being knowledgable of the law, Muhammed has worked tirelessly for the promotion and proliferation of civil rights, in general, and civil rights for Muslims, in particular. Muhammed has courageously resisted right-wing bigots who pose a threat to the safety and security of Muslims locally and nationally. He is efficient and effective in terms of event planning and media engagement, all for the purpose of combating Islamophobia. A Muslim activist myself who runs Students for Justice in Palestine,I empathize with Muhammed as I also have to deal with right-wing bigots and Zionists on campus who claim that Palestine and the Palestinians don’t exist. In a place like South Florida, combating Islamophobia is a tough struggle, but this is why South Florida activists are so proud of Muhammed. Muhammed’s actions motivate me to work harder for the causes of peace and justice. We have confidence in ,and his efficiency and effectiveness clearly stands out. It is about time that Muhammed be recognized for his accomplishments. In some arenas, he has already won that recognition, so there shouldnt be a reason why he can’t be recognized by loonwatch.

  70. Noor Fawzy Says:

    To learn more about Muhammed Malik, his activism, and his accomplishments, I recommend that you look at the following:

    Combating Islamophobia in Florida: An Interview With Muhammed Malik- 2011 – ” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/malik_interview.html

    Al Jazeera Coverage on anti-sharia hysteria: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/03/2011329195150913510.html

    Miami’s Peaceful Response to Quran Burning – http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Miamis-Peaceful-Response-to-Koran-Burning-102422564.html

    Muslim Group Heads to Tallahassee; Anti-Muslim Group Stokes Fear – http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2010/03/cair_muslim_capital_day_florida_security_council.php

    “Muhammed Malik, winner of 2011 Patriot Award for Civil Rights” – http://www.constitutioncampaign.org/blog/?p=1444

  71. Ida E. Says:

    This list is great! Although there is one person that I’m surprised not to be highlighted, and that’s Muhammed Malik. He is a civil rights organizer in Miami – but he’s organized throughout the state of Florida. He’s faced constant threats due to his heritage, religious identity, and outspoken attitude. Despite these threats, he keeps fighting for our basic rights as American citizens. I myself am an Iranian-American, so I can say first-hand that Muhammed has been a voice for justice against Islamaphobia. He NEEDS to be on this list! You can learn more about him with the link below:

    Combating Islamophobia in Florida: An Interview With Muhammed Malik- 2011 – ” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/malik_interview.html

    Thank you!

  72. Garibaldi Says:

    Many of those who were asked to be added to the list were already on the list or mentioned. There are some that weren’t up there and need to be, and for the Muhammad Malik fans we are adding him as well!

  73. Garibaldi Says:

    @Inspired,

    Nothing has changed, we can’t police or read through all comments, especially when they are thousand worded. Your comments and SAD’s have both likewise been approved. I encourage all to stay on topic or else your posts will be deleted. I don’t even know why David Irving is being discussed here, it goes without saying that we find anyone who denies the holocaust to be a deplorable individual.

  74. Omar Mekky Says:

    what about Muhammad Malik?!….I can not imagine that he is not mentioned in the list……this guy should be added Now

  75. Believing Atheist Says:

    Lately I see some double-standards applied on Loonwatch. Loonwatch claims that anyone who denies the Holocaust is a deplorable individual, yet they put Cenk Uygur as a candidate to be an anti-loon, when he denies the Armenian Genocide. The mass murder of innocents transcends borders and ethnicities and all genocide is equally deplorable.

    You can’t hold Cenk at a higher moral ground, simply because he fights your battles. Louis Farrakhan fights Islamophobia as well but his rhetoric is steeped deep in anti-Semitism, that you wouldn’t want him as an ally, would you? If you say you wouldn’t, then you wouldn’t want Cenk as an ally either.

  76. Tabetha Says:

    [We are an anti-Loon site and an anti-Hate site. We do not approve of Holocaust Denial in the least!! And we have de-linked the page. Thank you for the tip.]–Garibaldi

  77. Garibaldi Says:

    @BelievingAtheist Cenk is not in the same league as Holocaust Deniers. Period. He is not comparable to Farrakhan in the least, and for you to trump out that comparison in itself is deplorable.

    Admittedly, you are new to the anti-Loon fight, a few times you’ve had to retract your views of individuals as well as what you thought were the opinions of some. For instance you were gushing over Tarek Fatah.

    The controversy over the Armenian genocide is very strong, there is a lot of competing academic viewpoints on what happened at the time. Evidence for Genocide for example against Bosnians or the Holocaust is well established. There is consensus on those events, with respect to the Armenian case there is not a similar consensus.

    There is no denying that there is a historical trauma there for the Armenians, and it has become wedded into their national conscious and the narrative of who they are. That has to be respected by Turks, and Cenk understands this, his best friend and co-founder of Young Turks is Ana Kasparian, herself an ARMENIAN. They work for peace between Turks and Armenians. Do you think she would want us to take him down from consideration as an anti-loon?

    Cenk has proven himself as someone not impervious to facts, someone willing to accept truth and reality. His holding a controversial opinion on a controversial topic on which there is no consensus is not a valid reason to drop him from the anti-Loon list. So no, we decline your request to take him down as someone worthy of consideration as an anti-loon.

  78. Stephen G. Parker Says:

    @ Believing Atheist – (1) I don’t believe that it’s accurate to say David Irving is a Holocaust denier simply because he believes the word ‘holocaust’ is inaccurate as a description of those events. Any reasonable person will surely recognize that “the Holocaust” refers to certain EVENTS that (allegedly?) took place in World War 2 Germany. Since Mr. Irving doesn’t deny the EVENTS

  79. Stephen G. Parker Says:

    @ Believing Atheist – My fingers sometimes hit wrong keys. Somehow I unintentionally submitted that last comment before ending it.

    Since Mr. Irving does not deny the EVENTS commonly labeled “the Holocaust” (although he does apparently deny some of the details of the events), he is not a “Holocaust denier”. As in the play “Romeo and Juliet”, “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”; and in this case, “the Holocaust by any other name would stink as bad”. Or as “southerner humor” I read some years ago said, “they call it the Civil War; but there shore weren’t nuthin’ civil about it”. If I object to the term “civil” with relation to “the War Between the States”, that doesn’t mean I deny the war everyone calls “the Civil War”. So I wouldn’t be a “Civil War denier”.

    If he DID deny the events called “the Holocaust” based on his own primary source historical research, he has every right to do so. And it wouldn’t be sufficient refutation to simply say “everybody KNOWS those events took place; so he is obviously a loon”. If primary source material can be produced to refute him, by all means produce it. But to assume he’s wrong because “Dr. So-and-So” and “Dr. Whosit” say so based on Dr. Somebody Else’s writings is simply not sufficient.

    (2) I’m glad to know that you don’t believe “Holocaust denial” should be criminalized. But you brought up his ‘conviction’ for that ‘crime’ without saying anything to the effect that you found that criminal conviction offensive.

    As to your questions as to why certain things are censored or criminalized in the “muslim world”, for one thing I believe you’re doing what’s called “moving the goal posts”. But for another thing, I believe you’re over generalizing. “A” riot took place over pictures of Muhammad, but did the whole “muslim world” riot over those pictures? And while a certain prominent muslim leader issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie, was that fatwa not denounced by many others throughout the “muslim world”?

    I personally (and I believe at least most muslims corresponding on this site agree with me) believe that there is no compulsion in religion. If a person wishes to ridicule and mock any of the Prophets of God, they are free to do so. They will have to face God’s judgment for what they do; but no man (whether Prophet or follower of the Prophet) has been authorized to be the instrument of God’s judgment. So I agree with you that fatwas against Salman Rushdie and others like him are repulsive.

    The Prophet Muhammad was certainly ridiculed by the ‘unbelievers’ of his day, as the Qur’an itself testifies. But I can’t recall anywhere in the Qur’an where God instructed the Prophet or his followers to take punitive action against them (either in Mecca or Medina). They were told not to make friends or allies of those who mocked God and His Prophet (which is essentially the same as the Bible saying “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers”); but they were only told to fight and kill those unbelievers who militarily attacked them (not those who verbally attacked them).

    So I believe the mockers can mock to their hearts’ content. If you wish to label God as an “imaginary friend” as you did in one of your comments on another thread, by all means feel free to do so. I’ll never try to prevent you from doing so; and if I find out that someone else is attacking you for it (or seeking criminal prosecution against you because of it) I will defend your right to say it (though I’ll consider you foolish for believing such a thing). God Himself will be your judge, and He is the best of judges.

    Those ‘historians’ who seek to produce evidence that Moses, Jesus, and/or Muhammad never existed are welcome to do so. I personally don’t feel so threatened by such ‘scholarship’ that I feel the need to criminalize their investigations and the publishing of their conclusions. I won’t seek fatwas against them; and if some over zealous Imam issues one – and I hear about it – I’ll be speaking up against such zeal which is “not according to knowledge”.

  80. Garo Says:

    Regret that Loon Watch has overlooked to include David Shuster of COUNTDOWN SHOW OF CURRENT TV.

    Suggestion: Please check your own Archives and see for yourself what Shuster has done against the lies and fabrications of loons like Pamela Geller and her ilk. Thank you.

  81. Sulayman F. Says:

    Great list! Whenever someone says that they think all Americans seem quiet on the issue of Islamophobia, I can show this to them.

  82. Bobby Joe Says:

    I’m glad to see Muhammed Malik added to the list. As a civil rights activist, Muhammed has faced intense hatred and threats to his safety in the same state where Quran burning became the national obsession. Muhammed is also bold for standing in solidarity with the LGBT community even when it is unpopular. For this, and many more reasons, Mr. Malik is a great example of someone whose vision and courage is changing our community for the better. Simply put, he brings everyone to the table even when he faces intense resistance.

  83. mnar Says:

    I think Muhammed Malik of the south florida community should be added. He is a well known for combatting islamphobia as well as many other causes

  84. Mustafa Stefan Dill Says:

    I ‘ll add my voice to those supporting Muhammed Malik for inclusion on this list. He’s doing great work in Florida, and is a very forward thinking person on a lot of issues affecting the ummah-at-large. Fearless, candid and a hard worker!

  85. Hajj Dawud Says:

    Believing Atheist Says: Hajji Dawud, and Shaykh

    Can you two explain your relationship and why you both feel the need to David Irving here?

    Using “Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D” as a handle gave rise to (1) vain contention, and (2) “SAD Ahmad” (although I am not sad). So I replaced “M.S.J.D.” with “al-Amriki” and then dropped everything but “Hajj Dawud,” by which I am more commonly known. I have never tried to conceal my identity behind any anonymous pseudonym, and I doubt whether anyone able to comprehend what they read (or write) has been confused by the changes.

    As for Irving, you libeled him, calling him a Holocaust Denier, which he is not. I don’t think LoonWatch should be a place where such hate-mongering libel might go uncorrected. I’m not here to do the work of the enemies of humanity ~ “anonymously” ~ as some people are.

  86. Hajj Dawud Says:

    Sir Stephen writes: @ Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad al-Amriki – That was an excellent response to the accusations of “Believing Atheist”.

    Thank you. David Irving is that rarity, a thinker who acknowledges his mistakes and appreciates correction.

    Most people are not interested any more in World War II, but I was born then and lost a father then ~ it has interested me from time to time. I recommend WWII in HD from Netflix (streaming) for anyone who is curious about a defining period of world history and America, and Irving’s books for anyone interested in the other half of the history of that war ~ each of these two histories is a comprehensive view from its perspective in itself, but neither is fully comprehensible of the war without the other. More importantly, in my opinion, today cannot be fully comprehended without an appreciation of the history of World War II ~ from both perspectives.

    Many of the names of people mentioned here ~ who are known for this or for that ~ are new to me. I consistently forget the names of people who oppose me, and do the same with the names of people who are damned by others or who are praised for what they may have done. I cannot afford to view anything of what I see through any bias, I might miss a nuance that informs me of something I need to know. Unfortunately this amnesiac tendency often applies as well to those who support or compliment what my fingers have written, although for different reasons.

    But seeing David Irving maligned by whoever that was, in this forum which is otherwise a mine of factual information of significant value, was not something I could ignore as mere ignorance or propaganda. Like a handful of others, Irving has published factual information that the enemies of humanity are desperate to suppress. We don’t need to respect the man in order to respect the fact that God has placed such information in his hands to disseminate ~ as is the case with every such fountain of information. It is not Irving, but what he writes that the enemies of humanity despise, and Irving himself only for writing it. And it is what he writes, not Irving himself, that should not be hidden behind false ad hominem libels and slanders from the eyes of those who seek truth.

    LoonWatch, from what I have seen, is more than fair. Falsely labeling David Irving as a “Holocaust denier” ~ which he is not ~ is not fair. The readers are entitled to better than that.

  87. Believing Atheist Says:

    @Stephen Parker,

    Stephen if I had the power I would personally make you the anti-loon of 2011. You’re the Muslim Voltaire and it is people like you that I have faith in the reconciliation of Islam and liberalism. But if you’re the Muslim Voltaire you make me out to be the grand atheist censor. You say Irving has every right to deny the Holocaust and I agree, so we should not fight over the issue.

    1. Please rewatch the (anti-loon candidate), Max Blumenthal video I linked in a previous comment on this thread and it will answer all your complaints to me about Irving and you be the judge.

    2. I was not moving the goal post. The reason I brought up the Muslim world was because your anger or criticism is misdirected. Free-speech and the freedom of thought are not prevalent problems in the West though some transgressions of these principles exist as Irving exemplifies with his jail sentence. Your criticism should be directed towards your own people and community alongside criticism of the West.

    Here are a few flaws in your argument:

    You’ve atomized the riots to the microcosmic level by giving it a singular distinction connoted by the word “A”. What you have ignored is the grander and bigger byproduct of the riots i.e., fear and being held hostage to fear. We in the West are generally afraid of the backlash criticism of your prophet or your religion will generate. For instance, Yale University Press published a book on the cartoon controversy without the pictures and South Park did not animate your prophet (and out of respect I will say PBUH). However, I believe this will change thanks to people like you and the anti-loons who are fighting within the Muslim community for a more liberal interpretation of Islam. Such an interpretation in my opinion exists and you are a perfect example of a Muslim who holds such an interpretation.

    Moving on to Rushdie. Even the leading Muslim University, Al-Azhar said Rushdie should be brought to trial simply because he committed a thought crime like Irving. You are correct that some Muslims denounced this but those who did such as Mahfouz were also sometimes attack be it physically (in the case with Mahfouz) or verbally.

    But like I said the Muslim world is slowly but surely changing for the better thanks to people like you Stephen and other Muslim anti-loons.

  88. Faisal Says:

    How many can we choose? There are too many good people in the 2011 Anti Loon List. I know some of them including Charles Kurzman and Haroon Mughal. If I had to narrow it down I will choose Prof Risa A. Brooks or Max Blumenthal for his articles exposing the anti Sharia bills and Israeli extremists in ‘Feeling the Hate’.

    Loon Watch, please permit me to offer some guidance to the David Irving supporters above as I was surprised at the ignorant comments above by Stephen G Parker and others. I do not believe the self styled ‘Shaykh’ has any education in fiqh, if indeed he is a Muslim as he claims.

    There are comprehensive links at the website http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-david/ exposing the history reviser David Irving. David Irving could not respond when his lies were challenged moreover, like Robert Spencer he refuses to debate and respond.

    History records that some Zionists did ally with Hitler, that is a fact that is well known. Also well known is that Hitler tried to form alliances with the Mufti in Palestine, Haji Amin Husseini who wanted Jewish immigration halted. In war alliances of convenience are made, and can be taken out of context. Like, Islamophobes claim Hitler conspired with the Mufti to bring about the Holocaust and anti semites claim that Hitler conspired with Zionists to create Israel, Nazi sympathisers claim the Holocaust was a fraud, and Hitler didn’t know what was going on, and so on and so forth.

    This website has comprehensive links for anyone who wants to learn more:-

    David Irving is one of the most insidious of Holocaust deniers. This index ties together some of the material that we have about him.
    http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-david/

    We offer a pamphlet for those seeking a printed concise introduction to Holocaust-denier David Irving and his lies, entitled Who is David Irving?

    Who is David Irving?
    written by Jamie McCarthy
    http://www.holocaust-history.org/pamphlets/irving/pamphlet.shtml
    David Irving has been unable to find any errors in this pamphlet.

    There is a German language site created by Albrecht Kolthoff at http://www.david-irving.de

    Andrew Mathis has answered a question about finding Irving’s books at http://www.holocaust-history.org/questions/irving-david.shtml

    David Irving: Négationniste pour l’amour d’Hitler (David Irving: Denier out of love for Hitler): http://www.phdn.org/negation/irving/ is a French language site with information, links and a bibliography on David Irving.

    The Nizkor Project has a page devoted to David Irving. http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/

    In 1998, The Holocaust History Project produced a pamphlet entitled Who is David Irving?

  89. Believing Atheist Says:

    @Shaykh,

    I did not ask you to explain the relationship between you and Hajji Dawud. That was Inspired by Muhammad, he/she said that. Go back and check.

    I really don’t care. It’s your ideas that are important for me to deconstruct.

    Having said that I want an apology from you for libeling me now. Let’s see if you’re a person of integrity.

  90. Solid Snake Says:

    Regarding Beleiving Athiest’s and Stephens’s discussion:

    Picture or paintings of the Prophet (PBUH) have existed for a very long time, dating back to when the Muslim empire was in existence. Yet, the whole Empire did not erupt in protests, riots, etc etc. I believe that when we make the argument that Muslims have a strong resentment towards free speech and criticism of Islam we become guilty of completely ignoring the socio-political issues that currently influences the Muslim world. In the following I will include my opinion on why today’s reactions to pictures differ from past depictions of the Prophet eg Sufi drawings etc etc.:

    1. When people compare the Wests’ championing of free speech and to the, alleged, Muslims hate for it they often overlook the most obvious in search for an all encompassing answer. The most obvious detail is that you are comparing essentially two different worlds. On one hand you have the ‘West’ (for lack of a better term)that has enjoyed political and social stability for relatively huge stretches of time allowing them to build and develop leading to an increased quality of living for its people. with that, more people become educated. And you can see where education leads to.

    Now compare that to the ‘Muslim’ world. Wars, occupations, colonization, Western-supported dictators. Many ‘Muslim’ countries (an idiotic word since there is no such thing as a Muslim country in existence) have western backed dictators, those dictators are not concerned with their people. they do not develop their countries or attempt to increase the quality of living of their people. If the people attempt to do something about it those backing the dictators will support them (the dictators) with weapons, refuge from persecution (in the case of Saleh in Yemen),training, and intelligence. My point is that with the West now currently bombing, occupying, running secret prisons, and running drone strikes in the majority of ‘Muslim’ countries it is comical to expect them to value the Right of Free Speech when they themselves are denied the Right to Live (Or if the are not dead The Right To Live In Peace Without Fear).

    I also believe that to many Muslims the ridiculing of the Prophet by the ‘West’ seems to be a continuation of the bombing, invading, etc etc. As if to add insult to injury. it is interesting that a large group of Muslims be up in arms about Western depictions of the Prophet yet they do not have the same reaction towards Muslims who have been drawing the Prophet for years and years since the days of the Muslim empires

    2. The above does not excuse the actions of those who rioted and committed acts of violence in response to the drawings. The correct actions to the mocking of the Prophet is to just practice your religion peacefully. Meaning refute whatever argument is being made against the Prophet or Islam in a peaceful manner. The most important aspect of Islam is to find peace within yourself first then you can focus on other issues.

    I will be the first to admit that the Muslims of today are lacking in many ways But that is not caused by Islam. It is the abandoning of Islamic values that has caused the degradation of of the Ummah. Of course all of this was told to us by the Prophet regarding our current state of affairs. I dont know the Ahadith word for word:

    the Prophet once said that we Muslims will be great in number! We will be great in quantity but we will lack the quality that a believer should have . If someone can post the hadith I would appreciate it.

    Also he prophesied the state of ‘Muslim’ countries (I would say countries in which the majority are Muslims) when he said (again I do not know the exact wording and im not in a position to go search for the hadith): they (the Kufaar) will pick and choose your countries (to invade, occupy, bomb, cause social instability through covert means etc) as if they were at a buffet or dinner table!

    Oh how true it is! Iran seems to be up next on the menu!

    sorry about punctuation, misspelling, sentences that don’t make sense lol

  91. Inspired by Mohammad Says:

    Hajji Dawud

    It is not Irving, but what he writes that the enemies of humanity despise, and Irving himself only for writing it. And it is what he writes, not Irving himself, that should not be hidden behind false ad hominem libels and slanders from the eyes of those who seek truth.

    Who are the enemies of humanity you keep referring to?

    LoonWatch, from what I have seen, is more than fair. Falsely labeling David Irving as a “Holocaust denier” ~ which he is not ~ is not fair. The readers are entitled to better than that

    You have yet to prove your case. Like Stephen you didn’t back up anything you said, except to do what you’re accusing Irvings detractors of doing using heresay and conspiracy.

    As for Irving, you libeled him, calling him a Holocaust Denier, which he is not. I don’t think LoonWatch should be a place where such hate-mongering libel might go uncorrected. I’m not here to do the work of the enemies of humanity ~ “anonymously” ~ as some people are.

    I agree that hate mongering should not go unchallenged. But it’s you that is doing the hate mongering here. I am challenging you.

    You posting under your real name means nothing nor does it give you more credibility than an anonymous poster, because we have no way of knowing if your real ID is fake. It is not difficult to get mulitple identities in real life.

    Thus for all we know, you could be pretending to be a Muslim supposedly under a real name with an identity you bought to propogate your nazi views, because a website that fights Islamophobia would attract such undesirables.

    Everyone knows neo nazis are marginalised. Just like some have allied themselves to far fight Zionists, others try to latch onto the Palestinian cuase, or the Islamophobia cause to vent their Jew hatred.

    So you have a good point there, but don’t worry, I for one recognise suspicious characters. Now please prove your case that Irving did not deny the Holocaust.

  92. Hajj Dawud Says:

    Believing Atheist writes: I did not ask you to explain the relationship between you and Hajji Dawud. That was Inspired by Muhammad, he/she said that. Go back and check.

    You’re right. I guess you all look alike to me.

    Having said that I want an apology from you for libeling me now. Let’s see if you’re a person of integrity.

    Attributing “Can you two explain your relationship and why you both feel the need to David Irving here?” is “libel”??? Sue me and we’ll see whether a judge agrees.

  93. Solid Snake Says:

    This Glenn Greenwald article may help bolster my point

    http://www.salon.com/2012/01/02/end_of_the_pro_democracy_pretense/singleton/#comments

  94. walt kovacs Says:

    hilarious thread

    greenwald and cenk support ron paul….but they arent loons

    dickie is a total nutcase….but not a loon

    guess it takes a real loon to love a loon

  95. Hajj Dawud Says:

    “Inspired by Mohammad” says: Who are the enemies of humanity you keep referring to?

    You can know them by their fruits. Were you “inspired by Muhammad” ~ or by Jesus, Moses, Abraham, or God ~ you’d know exactly who they are.

  96. Tabetha Says:

    Believing Atheist you said Stephen if I had the power I would personally make you the anti-loon of 2011. I don’t think so. Mystic44 is no longer blogrolled. If anything he would qualify for a loon award. Mystic44 is an anti-semite who blames every Islamist attack on some grand conspiracy and says Mossad pulled off behind 9/11. His ‘facts’: Speculate and fantasise.

    Mr Hajji Dwud you said It appears that the Nazis murdered a lot of Jewish people. That may or may not have satisfied the “redemption of Israel” demands of the Talmudic prophecies. World War II was a nasty business, Hitler or the Nazis were guided by a non-existent Talmudic prophecy, according to you. Your fictional story above, is just that. Fiction. Basically: The Holocaust was the reason Israel came into being, this means that the evidence surrounding the Holocaust must be declared to be false.

    Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad a-Amriki Your attempts to legitimise shoddy revisionist history is just weak sauce cooked up for your unhealthy anti-semitic obsession. People are entitled to their own opinions only. Not their own facts based on prejudices.

  97. Believing Atheist Says:

    @Tabetha,

    I just want to retract my comments of support for Stephen G Parker as an antiloon. I did not know that the blog Mystic444 was an anti-semitic and conspiratorial blog. I in no way hate the Jewish people otherwise I would not be on this thread trying to prove that David Irving is a Holocaust denier and that the Holocaust took place. I have also on other threads praised the ADL and AJC and have said that American-Muslims should follow the example of Jewish-Americans.

    Additionally, I am a big fan of the two-state solution and I have said on this very thread that Israel has a right to exist. I hope no one plays guilt by association tactics on me because I do not know Stephen Parker or his views personally. I have just found out that his blog is anti-semitic.

    I apologize to the Jewish people for considering Stephen G Parker an anti-loon.

  98. Hajj Dawud Says:

    Tabetha surmise: Hitler or the Nazis were guided by a non-existent Talmudic prophecy, according to you.

    Nonsense. I don’t even hint at such a notion, let alone imply or suggest it. Try reading again when you’re not half-asleep.

    Basically: The Holocaust was the reason Israel came into being, this means that the evidence surrounding the Holocaust must be declared to be false.

    Actually, Israel came into existence to be a light for the world and to minister to the nations. It hid the light and feathers its own nest. That’s what the Bible shows, and what history shows, and I haven’t said anything other than that.

    Where do you get your nutty notions? Certainly not from me or anything I’ve written.

  99. Believing Atheist Says:

    @Shaykh,

    The Bible is not history. You correlate and integrate the two. Many of its passages are historically and archaeologically inaccurate. The Bible plagiarized many of its passages from other myths.

    Second if people fail to understand you that’s because you have mastered obscurantism, an abstruse style and deliberate incoherance to give your words a sense of mysticism, enigma and bewilderment.

    The problem is Shaykh that you are engaged in sophistry and I can see right through that sophistry. That is why I exposed your lies about the Holocaust denier David Irving (remember the Max Blumenthal video)? and that is why you chose not to respond to Faisal.

    This is not the first time I exposed you though. I exposed your lies that the MB did not create the MSA, by linking to evidence. All you could say in return was that you were there. Why should I believe you? How do I know where you were, or that you are even a Muslim?

    Shaykh I think you would be better suited to be on Alex Jones or Glenn Beck, not Loonwatch. If you still choose to comment here that’s fine by me. I will still expose you for the charlatan that you are.

  100. Hajj Dawud Says:

    “Believing Atheist” candidly announces his personal ad hominem assignment at LoonWatch: The Bible is not history.

    The Bible is history, future history, and falsified history. The Qur’an illuminates all three.

    A very informative book on the historicity of the Bible is The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites, by Moshe Weinfeld (Berkeley: University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California and Oxford, England, 1993, ISBN 0-520-07510-2). Moshe Weinfeld of blessed memory (1925-2009) was Professor of Biblical Studies, and Professor Emeritus of the Bible, at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem; he had also held various positions at the Jewish Theological Seminary, Brandeis University, the University of California at San Diego, and the University of California at Berkeley. In The Promise of the Land, Professor Weinfeld identifies Biblical grants of land not made to Abraham and David, and the “histories” from which those “grants” were drawn ~ that is, it identifies some parts of the Bible of which it can be said that “The Bible is not history,” which would be more accurately stated as “The Bible contains some falsehood.” “The Bible is not history” is not even a half-truth, it’s merely a lie. It is history, true and otherwise.

    You make seemingly authoritative statements and offer opinions, interpretations, arguments, half-truths and lies as “evidence” ~ and when your sophistry is exposed by verifiable facts, you ignore that and return to your original false contentions. You characterize the questions of others as assertions in order to impute tangential motives in asking them, attribute to others what they did not say by pretending to misunderstand what they write, and otherwise use tricks of misconstruction of clear words of established meaning to set up contentions that have not been raised, diverting discussion away from the topics you do not want to see discussed. You’re fairly good at it ~ I took you at face value at first ~ but you’re far from professional.

    And your insipid “threat” …

    If you still choose to comment here that’s fine by me. I will still expose you for the charlatan that you are.

    … is laughable. You are no threat to the truth, but only to those who are so ignorant of the truth that they are unable to recognize it when it appears in a wasteland of fictions and fancies, false-light half-truths, and outright lies repeated so endlessly as mantras that people begin to believe them while knowing they can only be fundamentally false, even if temporally tenable.

    People fear that they are living in a fictional universe, and many are right ~ they do. Some of it is quite sophisticated ~ note the relationship to “sophistry.” The minds of some people are so bludgeoned into submission to some irrational “understanding,” by an overwhelming avalanche of what sounds reasonable as long as they have no time to think about it, that even simple truth is indistinguishable for them from the web of lies in which they live. They don’t know what to believe, and instead rely on “facts” such as those Professor Weinfeld exposes as pious fictions.

    But among the readers are a few whose instinctual skepticism has given them the habit of turning away from what is false ~ and this is the limiting factor on what you write. It’s easy to pretend to agree with “the common wisdom” (which usually isn’t) in order to gain credibility for sophisticated deception or reinforcement of common deception, which is what several writers at LoonWatch do with varying levels of competence ~ loons in peacock feathers, as it were.

    That you expose yourself does not suggest that you can “expose” what does not exist.

    But one who cries “Victory!” from a failed assault on demonstrable truth is merely a crow.

    If you still choose to comment here that’s fine by me. I don’t need to waste time “exposing” you ~ you’re quite the naked jaybird already. And no flock of cuckoos can change your feathers.

  101. Stephen G. Parker Says:

    @ Tabetha – You seem to be quite pleased with yourself that you were able to persuade the loonwatch staff to remove my link from their blogroll. So I’ll congratulate you on your success. :grin: It was their choice to include me to begin with – I had not solicited them to do so, but I was quite honored that they did. To remove me is their right; and it’s not anything I consider worth getting upset about.

    I flatly deny the charge that I am “anti-Semitic”; and anyone who fairly reads my blog articles can see that. But I say without the least hesitation that I am “anti-Zionist” and believe that the Prophet Jesus’ (peace be with him) statement that the Jewish leaders of his day were of their father the Devil – and performed the Devils lying and murderous works – is equally applicable to Zionists of today. I make a definite distinction between being “Jewish” and being “Zionist”. In this I agree with such Jewish people as the Orthodox Jews Against Zionism (Neturei Karta).

    I have never – on my blog, or in comments on loonwatch or any other blog – disguised the fact that I believe there is nothing ISLAMist about those terrorist attacks blamed on “Muslims”. Some of those supposedly Muslim attacks (including especially 9/11) I say are manifestly the work of non-Muslim “Intelligence” Agencies (USA, British, and Israeli particularly) made to appear to be “Muslim”. About others (such as the recent church bombings in Nigeria) I say I am highly suspicious because they are such flagrant violations of very clear and explicit statements of the Qur’an and Sharia. It is inconceivable to me that “ISLAMists” seeking to establish Sharia would think they could accomplish their aim by outrageously violating the very Sharia they claim to be supporting. And the acts themselves bear a very strong likeness to ‘false flag’ acts which have been carried out in the past.

    Nevertheless, as I said on my recent blog post about the Nigerian church bombings, although I consider them highly suspicious, it’s true that I have only my suspicions – not verifiable evidence (at least yet). So I said that if indeed they were actually carried out by an “Islamist” organization (Boko Haram), they were nevertheless in clear and plain violation of the teaching of God and His Prophet, and are repudiated by God, His Prophet, and all true Muslims.

    So, I am not anti-Semitic; but I am definitely anti-Zionist, and a “conspiracy theory nut” :smile: . If that offends you, you are certainly under no compulsion to read my blogs.

  102. Stephen G. Parker Says:

    Well, “Believing Atheist”, you certainly know how to make a person dizzy and disoriented with your constant back-and-forth-like-a-tennis-ball statements. :lol: First you’re practically giddy with praise for someone (such as Shaykh Hajj Dawud and me), and then at the first hint of something with which you disagree you flip flop to demonization and pompous arrogance. Perhaps you’re just still young and “full of yourself” and will mature and gain wisdom as you grow older.

    Your flip flopping about me was particularly humorous, since all it took for you to change your mind was the mere accusation of the knee-jerk Zionist Tabetha that I am “anti-Semitic”. It would appear that you did not even make an attempt to read any of my blog posts to verify her accusation. She just uttered that ‘frightening’ word and suddenly you can’t disassociate from me fast enough. :lol:

    I challenge you to look up my blog and read some of my posts. From the “Categories” on the right side of the page, check out “Zionism” for instance. You’ll find that I re-posted (with their permission) two articles from Neturei Karta (Orthodox Jews Against Zionism). You’ll find that I never speak hatefully of the Jewish people, although I strongly denounce the “Jewish supremacism” of Zionism. That supremacism is clearly evident in the very slogan the Zionists adopted from the beginning of their campaign to form their “Jewish State” in Palestine: “A people without a land for A LAND WITHOUT A PEOPLE”. By that very phrase they declare that the Palestinians are not even people; they’re just animals to be slaughtered or bugs to be crushed!

    Yes, I abhor the ideology and practice of Zionism; but I have no such abhorrence for Jews themselves – any more than the Hebrew Prophets did. They strongly castigated the nation of Israel of their time, and declared that though the Israelites might rival the sands of the seashore for number only a very small remnant were truly the people of God. Were those Prophets “anti-Semites”? I certainly agree with them and declare that today also even though the vast majority of Jewish people may be atheists and Zionists, there is still “a remnant according to the election of grace” (even though it may be very small) who truly believe in and obey the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They are the ones who are not just Jews “according to the flesh”, but who are worshipers of God “in spirit and in truth”.

    There are apparently many Jews today who have come to believe that Jesus the son of Mary (peace be on him) was indeed a (very human) Prophet of God, and that Jews as a whole need to begin to reevaluate their reaction to him. In my article “The Olivet Discourse: Further Thoughts” ( http://mystic444.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/the-olivet-discourse-further-thoughts/ ), beginning about half way down the page, I have given a number of quotations under the heading “What Jews Say About Yeshua/Jesus”. Others have also embraced fully the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be with him and his family), such as Muhammad Asad. The Orthodox Jews Against Zionism, although they perhaps don’t actually recognize the Prophethood of Jesus and Muhammad, totally reject the repulsive ideology of Zionism and Jewish supremacy. They seem to believe that when the Jewish people are truly ‘redeemed’ by God, it will also bring ‘redemption’ and blessing for all the nations of the world. They get along well with Muslims and non-Zionist Christians. I welcome such Jews, and do not require that they ‘convert’ to my way of thinking in all things in order to get along with them.

    As for my “conspiracy theories”, as I said in a previous comment to “Tabetha”, I have never sought to hide this fact. Sometimes the ‘set-ups’ and ‘false flags’ are blatant; other times the events are simply ‘highly suspicious’. If you wish to see the evidence and reasons I present for my ‘conspiracy theory’ beliefs, check my blog under the “‘Muslim’ Terrorism” category, and look especially for the articles ‘FBI Incites “Muslim” Terrorism’ and ‘Are “Muslim Extremists” Bombing Churches and Mosques?” If you want to just be like an Ostrich and bury your head in the sand, pretending no evidence exists for ‘false flag’ terrorist attacks, by all means don’t read what I have written, or the sites to which I refer for evidence in those articles.

  103. Stephen G. Parker Says:

    @ “Inspired by Muhammad” – The reason that Ahmadinejad’s question (as to why Palestinians are being punished for what Nazi Germans did in WWII) is valid is that the “Holocaust card” is one of the main excuses repeated over and over by Zionists as to why Jews should be allowed to either kill or drive out the Palestinians in order to form their own “Jewish State” in Palestine. Can you really deny that this is so? We are told over and over that Jews DESERVE to have their own country because of all the persecution they’ve experienced – especially the Nazi Holocaust. “Playing the Holocaust card” is one of the things that really ticks Norman Finkelstein off, for instance – and he certainly does not deny that the Holocaust happened.

    The Zionists give 3 main reasons why they should have their own “Jewish State” in Palestine: (1) The land was given to them by God; (2) The land actually belonged to them for a relatively short period of time, until the Romans drove them out; and (3) if the former 2 reasons are not enough, the Holocaust is the winning ‘card’ which can’t be disputed.

    I certainly don’t dispute that Jewish people had lived in Palestine for centuries before they formed their “Jewish State” with the connivance of Great Britain and then of the USA. And they lived in peace for all that time. The Zionists changed all of that by murdering or driving out the Palestinians – whom they blatantly said were not a people. And the Holocaust is one of the primary excuses they give for their right to do so.

    As for your statement (actually in the form of a question) that at least the Israelis have not killed the native Palestinians like the USA killed the Native Americans, all I can say is “You gotta be kidding!” We’ve just been remembering “Operation Cast Lead” of a couple of years ago; and that’s just one instance of many of the slaughter of Palestinians by Zionist Israeli thugs – going on for over 60 years so far. The whole modern history of “the Nation of Israel” has been nothing but killing of Palestinians in the name of YHWH and the land which is supposedly the Jews by “right”.

    I’m pretty sure that neither Hajj Dawud nor I (nor anyone else on this loonwatch site – in the USA or elsewhere) justifies – even for a minute – the atrocities committed by the USA against the “American Indians”. We think it is a cause for shame for our country; but we certainly don’t think it constitutes a just reason to turn a blind eye to – or remain silent about – the Palestinian slaughter currently going on. Nor will we excuse any of the other wars and slaughters going on in the name of “Democracy” and U.S. hegemony, or in the name of Israel.

  104. Believing Atheist Says:

    @Shaykh,

    Shaykh you deserve to be loon of the year. You’re still clinging onto the false notion that the Bible is history, and “falsified history,” if it is falsified it is not historical but pseudo-history.

    Your so called Biblical historians have been refuted a long time ago. If you don’t believe me just browse through all the articles in this site
    http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

    You may change your mind and return to rationality and empirical understanding.

  105. Believing Atheist Says:

    @Stephen G. Parker,

    I went back to our Ron Paul Imagine discussion and I saw that the last discussion on that topic between you and I was you saying that you believe 9/11 was done by the mossad and Israel. Yet you offered zero evidence for this assertion. I don’t like your demonization of Israel because I believe in its right to exist and the two-state solution.

    That is why I can’t support you anymore and I was mistaken in praising you initially. I learned a lesson from this though. I should know a person as completely as possible before I issue praise.

  106. Stephen G. Parker Says:

    @ Believing Atheist – Their are a couple of reasons why I didn’t give evidence for my belief that 9/11 was done by USA and Israeli “Intelligence” Agencies in that comment. One was simply that my statement was intended merely as a backdrop for another statement: if it was Muslim terrorists who did the 9/11 attacks, their reason was not because “they hate our freedoms”; rather it was because they hate our wars of aggression against Muslim countries. Being a straightforward person, I didn’t want to make that hypothetical statement without preceding it with the fact that I don’t actually believe it was Muslims who carried out that terrorist attack. (If it was, though, it was still wrong whatever their personal justifications may have been).

    The second reason for not presenting evidence was that I don’t consider loonwatch comments section to be a proper forum for me arguing my ‘conspiracy nut’ beliefs about 9/11. When I do make a statement about my belief on that subject, it is just a backdrop for something else. So I don’t try to defend it; I just state it.

    If you want to know my reasons, and find links that go into a whole lot more detail about the evidence, take up my recommendation in the previous comment to check out certain of my blog articles. It is on my own blog site that I explain “where I’m coming from”.

    You are definitely entitled to believe what you think is right on this matter or any other. I won’t attack you – or even call you a ‘loon’ :grin: – because you disagree with me. But my blog is where you should go if you want to find my reasons for my beliefs on such controversial subjects – particularly where I know my position is contrary to the loonwatch position. Probably the only time I might make an exception is if Danios, Garibaldi, or one of the other writers at loonwatch wrote an article seeking to prove that 9/11 was carried out by “Muslim” terrorists. Then I MIGHT argue a bit with them. But I would try to keep it respectful, arguing “only in the best way”.

  107. Hajj Dawud Says:

    Sir Stephen writes: I’m pretty sure that neither Hajj Dawud nor I (nor anyone else on this loonwatch site – in the USA or elsewhere) justifies – even for a minute – the atrocities committed by the USA against the “American Indians.”

    Actually I don’t pass judgment on that continent-wide war between those nearest genetic cousins ~ the Red Man and the White Man ~ on the northern Lost Continent, the cut-off lands of the western hemisphere. I have different views of the European savagery in South America, but they are just as irrelevant as any views I might have of the European savagery in North America. My Wind River Shoshoni ancestors did not join Pocatello’s war against the settlers in Wyoming, Montana and Utah, and their Chief Washakie was buried with full military honors as a Captain in the Army of the United States. My views regarding that history of North America derive in part from this:

    You will go on counting coup and living beneath the sun and the moon at one with the Great Spirit Who is beyond the skies until there come to you, in boats that ride the winds, a people with the voices of spring and eyes of the summer skies and hair of the rays of autumn sun and faces of the winter moon;

    and with long knives and thunder they will spoil the land and its life and corrupt your young braves with fiery drink and carry away your squaws to tend their cookfires and make your maidens great with children that are neither yours nor theirs;

    and they will rob you of your faith and pretend they have come from the Great Spirit and speak untruth without reason or sense.

    And many moons of summers will pass and the faith of your fathers will be only a dim memory; and as a people you will not be except scattered and vagabond;

    and the Great Peace will come and move throughout the land and dwell among those children who were neither yours nor theirs; and they will return, your distant sons and daughters, to the Great Spirit of the faith of your fathers; and theirs will be the Great Peace.

    And so it has been told of the Great Spirit from the first day of our Migration after the coming of the Great Waters that divided the land.

    My ancestors did not lose their faith or suffer those trials, because those with Chief Washakie were guided in a different path, as witnesses.

    I am very reluctant to judge people involved in events that I did not witness, that were prophesied so many thousands of years before those people ever existed that the memory of the prophecies was all but lost. I understand why the brothers and cousins of my Red ancestors fought against the brothers and cousins of my White ancestors, but those people have returned to their Lord and their descendants today will not be asked about what their forefathers did, but about what they do today.

    What is happening today in Palestine ~ and in America, and in Europe, and everywhere else ~ was prophesied so long ago that almost all traces of those prophecies are gone, except those in today’s Bible, those preserved among the muslims, and some preserved from Noah’s time remembered by the children of his oldest son Japheth (ancestor of both the Red and the White). Those in the Bible have been hidden beneath priestly “interpretation” and false “supplements” to favor Israel; those among the muslims have been “supplemented” with false prophecies and “interpreted” to favor the Arabs. We (of Muslim America) find those prophecies quite interesting, and have been watching undeniable and unmistakable clear Signs appear for half a century, all over the world.

    Do we like to see this? No. But we accept that we are witnesses to it, partly because we have no alternative, but mostly because it strengthens our reliance on God and His Word. Whether that Word is the Qur’an or Jesus, it is all one Word from Him; and it is utterly, absolutely, and completely reliable, and so clear and plain that anyone can be informed by it, even those who deny it and falsify it. Everyone ~ certainly including us ~ is impotent against God’s Word, only His Will becomes manifest and we’re seeing it, and His Judgment is true.

  108. Hajj Dawud Says:

    Sir Stephen writes (regarding 9/11): If you want to know my reasons, and find links that go into a whole lot more detail about the evidence, take up my recommendation in the previous comment to check out certain of my blog articles.

    I was unable to find the links, but did read one of your recent articles on this topic. You’re missing some facts. You can write me at hajj (at) muslimamerica.net and I’ll send you some reading material, or you can come by ~ just north of Spokane ~ and we’ll show you more. This forum, I agree, is not the place for such a discussion. When you see a few more of the puzzle pieces, the picture will come into much better focus for you.

  109. William Coley Says:

    Wow alhumdulillah, thanks for mentioning me in your contest. I am truly honored. A little update Muslims for Liberty is producing a video series now on Islam and Liberty. I will also be giving a lecture at MTSU in Murfeesboro TN on Islam and Liberty. Discussing Islamic origins of “Western Liberty”. Hopefully ,iA, i don’t get shot lol.

  110. sarah burns Says:

    My vote is for William Coley.

  111. question Says:

    ummm how do you vote?

1 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Anti-Loons of 2011: Profiles in Courage | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper Says:

    [...] Anti-Loons of 2011: Profiles in Courage [...]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here
Advertise Here