Top Menu

Eric Allen Bell Chooses to Retain “Ridiculous Prejudice”

Eric Allen Bell

Eric Allen Bell

Also see: Eric Allen Bell Defects to JihadWatch Twilight Zone.

Eric Allen Bell Chooses to Retain “Ridiculous Prejudice”

by Sheila Musaji

This past week Eric Allen Bell posted an article on Daily Kos attacking the Loonwatch site

I was startled when I read the article, and sent an email “heads up” to Danios at Loonwatch in case he hadn’t seen the article yet.  He replied that he had not seen it, and he was equally surprised at the content and at the venue in which the article was printed.

I had previously heard the name Eric Allen Bell only in relation to a documentary he had made One Mosque Too Many on the Murfreesboro Mosque.  That documentary was well received in the American Muslim community, and in the interfaith community.  Bell said himself about this documentary and why he made it

It was on this past 4th of July that I decided to make a documentary about the backlash against the building of a new Islamic Center here in Mufreesboro, TN. At that time I had no idea that a chilling wave of anti-Islamic hysteria was about to sweep over the country, strengthen the far right and send the civil rights movement several decades backwards all in the matter of just a few short weeks.

The documentary is titled “Not Welcome” and chronicles events in Murfreesboro concerning the backlash against the Mosque from the 4th of July to 9/11 of 2010. I have interviewed nearly everyone on all sides of this issue here. And along the way I have been threatened repeatedly but I have also made many new friends. I have learned a lot about how my own ridiculous prejudices about the South have distorted my point of view. I have been surprised repeatedly at how often the most unlikely of people can defy their stereotype with acts of kindness, courage and compassion. I have come to know many members of the Islamic community here, known them as friends, broken bread with them and watched as they faced persecution without striking back, without getting consumed with anger, watched as they prayed for those who oppose them, asked for God’s mercy on them and trusted that, in the end, whatever happens will be God’s will.

Because of that background, this current article of Bell’s was particularly puzzling. How could the person who said I have learned a lot about how my own ridiculous prejudices about the South have distorted my point of view. also be the person who showed ridiculous prejudice against the same American Muslim community he seemed to respect?  I thought that perhaps there are two different individuals with the same name – one opposed to bigotry, and one encouraging it, and so I did a little research.

There is only one Eric Allen Bell.  He has a website, and one of the sections of that site is Freedom From Religion.  Scrolling through the posts in that section, it became obvious that this individual is not fond of religion.  Bell’s posted comments are not just anti-Islam, but anti-all religion.  One of his posts is titled “God” is part of the 1 percent, and seems to sum up Bell’s position:

Once upon a time a very, very angry man named “god” created the world, got pissed off at everybody and killed them all with a flood, except for his buddy Noah and his 2 live crew. Later God decided everyone is so lame that he chose his “chosen people” to give a plot of real estate to while telling everyone else to f*ck off, ordered some ethnic cleansings to clear out the area and so forth. Still finding nearly all people to be unbearable (and who can blame him, really?) this god person decided, out of the kindness of his heart, to send his only son to be brutally tortured and savagely murdered so that he won’t have to send us all into a lake of hell fire for all eternity, because he loves us.

About 600 years later, god met this slave owner named Mohammed who also hated most people and the two of them really hit it off. God told Mohammed to wipe out the Jews, the Christians, basically everyone who did not see the the world the way that he did, and together they decided to call this new way of thinking, “the religion of peace”. But now the religion of peace wants to wipe god’s chosen people off of their plot of real estate and the followers of god’s poor brutalized son – whom the chosen people killed (oops, epic fail there guys) see this as a good thing because it will bring about the end of the world, and god’s son will appear in the clouds while the rest of us can go to hell. What does this all mean? It means god must be stopped and his followers need to give us back our planet before they blow the whole damned thing up in one big rapturous apocalyptic orgasm of self fulfilling prophecy. In other words GOD IS PART OF THE 1 PERCENT. “He” must be stopped.

On his site he promotes films like “Islam, What the West Needs to Know” about which he says “I cannot say that I am in 100% agreement with everything said in this documentary. However, having read the Koran, visited a few mosques and produced a documentary on Islamophobia in the Bible Belt, it is my feeling that fundamentally what is being put forth here in “Islam – What the West Needs to Know” is correct.”

As Colm O’Broin has pointed out about this particular “documentary”

The documentary Islam: What the West needs to know, which features many of the most influential anti-jihad writers, makes this point clear. A short TV ad is shown of ordinary Muslim Americans describing their backgrounds and finishes with the statement that “Muslims are part of the fabric of this great country and are working to build a better America.” The contributors to the documentary warn ominously however that the Koran allows Muslims to deceive non-believers in the service of Islam.

This is possibly the most reprehensible claim made by the anti-Muslim writers. If you accepted what they say it would mean that you can’t trust your friends, relatives, neighbours or work colleagues if they happen to be Muslim. In fact, all Muslims are suspect according to this poisonous allegation.

Bell’s admiration for films like this, and for individuals like Robert Spencer of the hate group SIOA makes some sense after scrolling through Bell’s site.  Although Spencer is a devout Catholic, and Bell would have no more respect for his religious beliefs than he would have for my religious beliefs, in Bell’s war against religion, it seems that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is his philosophy.

I had been working on a detailed response, but Devon Moore, also on Daily Kos posted an article yesterday Daily Kos Being Used to Further Classic Right-Wing Propaganda Against Loonwatch which does an excellent job of refuting the nonsense in Bell’s original article.

Bell begins his article by saying that,

The newly coined term Islamophobia describes an irrational fear of Islam.  But for any criticism of the Koran or of violent Jihad – even those criticisms that might have some legitimacy to them – even of radical Islam, are branded as Islamophobia and anyone who dares to raise questions about the nearly constant acts of Jihad going on increasingly around the world today is labeled a €œLoon.

What does Bell provide as way of evidence for the claim that Loonwatch opposes “any criticism of the Koran or of violent Jihad?” Does he provide quotes or statements from Loonwatch articles or writers? You know, facts?

The answer is a glaring and resounding, NO.

Instead, Eric relies on guesswork. According to him Loonwatch doesn’t speak out against “Islamic Terrorism,” that, to him, is enough to declare that it is “in fact a terrorist spin control network.”

A pretty bold and probably libelous claim when measured next to the absence of facts Bell provides.

When one takes a look at the mission statement of Loonwatch, it becomes clear that their focus is on challenging bigotry against Muslims, is a blogzine run by a motley group of hate-allergic bloggers to monitor and expose the web€™s plethora of anti-Muslim loons, wackos, and conspiracy theorists.

What’s wrong with that? As many commenters pointed out to Bell there are “thousands” of sites tracking “terrorism” and “jihad.” In fact there is a whole “Terrorism Industry” that is in existence feeding off of the fear of “Islamic Terrorism,” to make sure that Americans have a new “green” menace to replace the old “red” menace. Prof. Charles Kurzman, who has actually done empirical evidence on this topic gives us some perspective on this exaggerated threat,

As it turns out, there just aren€™t that many Muslims determined to kill us. Backed by a veritable army of fact, figures, and anecdotes, Kurzman makes a compelling case. He calculates, for example, that global Islamist terrorists have succeeded in recruiting fewer than 1 in 15,000 Muslims over the past 25 years, and fewer than 1 in 100,000 since 2001. And according to a top counterterrorism official, Al Qaeda originally planned to hit a West Coast target, too, on 9/11 but lacked the manpower to do so.

Bell seems to have a schizophrenic personality, on the one hand he defends religious liberty (such as in the case of Murfreesboro Mosque) but on the other hand he agrees with many of the irrational attacks leveled at Islam and Muslims:

1.) He conflates Radical Islam and Islamic Fundamentalism with Islam. In the comment section he made clear that he believes “Islam IS Islamic Fundamentalism.”

2.) He believes that“Islam is still in the dark ages” and that most Muslim countries are“barbaric” His evidence for this? Youtube videos and Wikipedia.

3.) He believes Muslims who are peaceful are so not because of “Islam” but in spite of Islam, as he says “Lets not confuse Muslims with Islam.” That is similar to the statement of Robert Spencer that “The only good Muslim is a bad Muslim.”

4.) He cherry picks verses, quotes them out of context, and when it is pointed out that the same could be done with other scriptures he resorts to a popular argument amongst Islamophobes; stating that while it may be true that other scriptures hold violent passages they “are rarely carried out” in contrast to Islam. There is nothing further from the truth as the website, WhatIfTheyWere details quite vividly. All the crimes that are considered uniquely “Islamic” are still committed by Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc.

5.) He also casts SPLC designated hate group leader Robert Spencer in a positive light writing,

Spencer, whom I don’t see eye to eye with either entirely, presents himself in a rather rational, sober and scholarly fashion and I might add that neither he nor the other “Loons” have bombs strapped to them – only words.

Either Bell is very ignorant or he is disingenuous. Robert Spencer is not a rational person. Someone who joins a group wanting to annihilate Anatolia, who denies the genocide of Bosnians, who thinks “Obama may be a Muslim,” is neither a scholar or a rational individual.

Also where is Eric Allen Bell’s outrage when polling shows that Americans and Israelis are more likely to support the killing of innocent civilians than Muslims in every Islamic nation:

Percentage of people who said it is sometimes justifiable to target and kill civilians:

Mormon-Americans 64%
Christian-Americans 58%
Jewish-Americans 52%
Israeli Jews 52%
Palestinians* 51%
No religion/Atheists/Agnostics (U.S.A.) 43%
Nigerians* 43%
Lebanese* 38%
Spanish Muslims 31%
Muslim-Americans 21%
German Muslims 17%
French Muslims 16%
British Muslims 16%
Egyptians* 15%
Indonesians* 13%
Jordanians* 12%
Pakistanis* 5%
Turks* 4%

Now, should we likewise, per the logic of Mr. Bell, be afraid of the scary Christian Americans, and make broad sweeping generalities about Christianity? Or Jewish Americans? Or Israeli Jews?

This is just a slither of what I found wrong with Eric Allen Bell’s article. It was reliant on not only a highly dubious methodology of critique, sourced poorly, but also filled with Orientalist and prejudiced tropes that ironically were the same ones used by the anti-Mosque opponents Bell documented in Murfreesboro, TN.

Danios of Loonwatch has also posted the following response

In 2009, the Daily Kos published a positive review of our website.  So imagine my surprise whenThe American Muslim emails me a link to a recently published article on Daily Kos which is nothing short of a hatchet job against LoonWatch.  This article was authored by Eric Allen Bell and is entitled and Radical Islam.  Bell had the temerity to accuse LoonWatch of being “a radical Islamic front, covering up for terrorism”; he writes: “ is in fact a terrorist spin control network.”

We would hardly bat an eye at this loony stream-of-consciousness article–Islamophobes have been accusing us of this since our site launched–except that this screed was published on the Daily Kos.  Why would a fellow progressive website take a swipe at us out of the blue?

This mystery solves itself when you look into who wrote the article.  His name is Eric Allen Bell, and he professes a soft spot for Robert Spencer, a man who was ranked by FAIR as the #2 leading Islamophobe in the country (losing out the number 1 spot to his boss, David Horowitz).  Spencer is the leader of the SIOA group, deemed by the SPLC to be a hate group.  Spencer’s organization has links to Neo-Nazi and skinhead groups in Europe.  Among other things, Robert Spencer joined a genocidal Facebook group and posted a genocidal video on his website.  This is the man that Eric Allen Bell calls “rational, sober and scholarly.”  Bell imagines some difference between  Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller even though they are close friends and colleagues-in-crime:

That explains why Bell’s article looks like something out of a loony anti-Muslim blog likeBareNakedIslamAtlasShrugs, or JihadWatch.  Bell uses the exact same talking points against us.  His main gripe seems to be why our site “ignores” the violent acts of terrorism committed by Islamic terrorists.  The answer to that is painstakingly obvious: our website’s mission statement is to document and expose Islamophobia.  To ask us why we don’t document Islamic terrorism would not be very different from asking us: why doesn’t your site talk about world hunger?  Whereas this might be a worthy topic to bring attention to, it is simply not part of our mission statement.  Surely, Bell understands that websites oftentimes specialize in one particular topic and simply do not have the resources to dedicate to every noble cause.

Bell’s accusation itself is steeped in his Islamophobia.  Imagine, for instance, if some white guy accused the NAACP of being “a black supremacist group” because they only fought racism against blacks instead of documenting violence and crime committed by blacks.  What would anyone call such a person but racist?

Eric Allen Bell tries to shield himself from accusations of bigotry by pointing out that he made some documentary about a mosque in Murfreesboro.  Yet, this would be like someone being opposed to segregated schools for black people on the one hand but on the other hand becoming absolutely livid against anyone who dared to deny that blacks are more violent than white people.  Readers can go to the racist website Stromfront to find plenty of people compiling lists of black violence and criminality just like Bell reproduced his list of Muslim violence and terrorism.

Bell argues that Muslims are more violent than people of other religions, which is in fact the exact same argument raised by–you guessed it–Robert Spencer.  My response to this is two-fold:

1) The threat of Muslim terrorism has been extremely exaggerated (in order to justify our wars in the Muslim world).  According to the FBI’s own database (available from 1980-2005), of the terrorist attacks in America less than 6% were committed by Muslims.  Readers should also refer to my May 2010 article which noted that since 9/11, there have been zero U.S. civilians killed from Islamic terrorism.  The situation is the same in Europe.  For the past several years, Europol has released an annual terrorism report, which showed that Islamic terrorism accounts for less than 1% of terrorism in Europe and has resulted in zero deaths.  In the half decade documented in these reports, the only injuries sustained from Islamic terrorism were to a security guard who “was slightly wounded.”

For the past several years, zero civilians in America and Europe have been killed by Islamic terrorism.  Yet, we are indoctrinated into thinking that Islamic terrorism represents some existential threat: you should be scared out of your wits and be losing sleep over Islamic terrorism.  This is war propaganda at its finest.  The reality is that you have a far greater chance of dying from being struck by lightning (about 67 Americans die of lightning every year) than being killed by an Islamic extremist (a whopping average of zero).

When confronted by this reality check, Islamophobes are quick to shift gears and insist that they are talking about Islamic terrorism in the “rest of the world.”  Yet, almost all of this Islamic terrorism takes place in countries that have been bombed, invaded, and occupied by the United States or its proxy Israel.  (India is the notable exception, although it should be noted that India has sustained a brutal occupation of Kashmir for many decades.)  Iraq currently leads the list.  If you look at Iraq before we started dropping bombs on it, Islamic terrorism was virtually non-existent in that country.  Is it Islam then that is to blame for this terrorism or our bombing, invasion, and occupation?

2) The type of terrorism that is included in such comparisons is what I call Amateur Terrorism (strapping a bomb on yourself to injure a security guard and kill yourself); it excludes the greater form of terrorism: Professional Terrorism (carpet-bombing an entire civilian population).  This is the violence committed by nation-states.  The United States and Israel are guilty of committing, in the words of the Nuremberg trial, “the supreme international crime”: waging wars of aggression.  When this form of violence is factored in, then the argument that Muslims are more violent seems untenable.  As Prof. Steven Walt noted, Americans have killed anywhere from 30 to 100 times as many Muslims as Muslims have killed Americans.  

I find it difficult to lecture Muslims about how violent they are when my own government, with the backing of its people, have killed so many Muslims (and continue to do so on a daily basis).

In a way, our violence is worse than theirs, because ours is sanctioned by us: our duly elected members of government are the ones who launch these wars, with our blessing and support.  It is our uniformed soldiers who kill those Muslims.  Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda and such groups operate without governmental authority, without any sanction or permission from the Muslim population.  In fact, the Muslim population is often the victim of such terrorist groups.

Since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years, or 91% of her existence. Meanwhile, the country in the Muslim world we vilify the most, Iran, has not initiated a war since 1795, over 200 years ago.  (It was, however, attacked by its neighbor with the aid and encouragement of the United States.) Who is the more violent one again?

Here is a map of the Greater Middle East, showing countries that the U.S. has bombed or has bases in:

Meanwhile, the modern state of Iran has never attacked any of its neighbors or any other country in the region (or world).  But, Eric Allen Bell wants us to say that Islam and Muslims are the violent ones?

These two points constitute my argument, and if Eric Allen Bell wants to produce something more than a screed that belongs on Pamela Geller’s AtlasShrugs, that’s what he needs to refute.

One should also recognize that I am making a radically different claim than the Islamophobes when I point to American aggression.  There is nothing intrinsically different between the United States and the rest of the world that makes it more violent–or, in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today”–other than the fact that it has the power to do so.  I truly believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely: those vested with great power almost invariably abuse it, and it is for this reason that they must be held to account the most.

Compared to the United States, the forces of Radical Islam have virtually no power.  Since 9/11–more than a decade ago–the collective strength and resources of the “worldwide jihad” have been unable to kill a single civilian on American soil.  That’s how powerful they are.  In the grand scheme of things, Islamic terrorism is a nuisance of modern day existence, a threat akin to that of gang violence or drug cartels–it is not an existential military threat as it is made out to be.

There is no doubt that Radical Islam is repugnant to the senses and must be intellectually fought.  But attacking all of Islam and Muslims in general–targeting their religion and labeling Islam as uniquely violent–is the most counter-productive way of doing so.  More than that, it’s intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.

, , , , , , , , ,

  • Pingback: Murfreesboro: Law Enforcement Being Taught that an Islamic … |

  • Eric Bell has apparently been banned at Daily Kos. Robert Spencer is crying about it.

  • Sheila Musaji last paragraph says it very well: “There is no doubt that Radical Islam is repugnant and must be intellectually fought. But attacking all of Islam and Muslims in general-targeting their religion and labeling Islam as uniquely violent-is the most counter-productive way of doing so. More than that, it is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.”

    And to that I can only add: and to do so-attack all of Islam-in the name of Human Rights is despicable!

  • big minded

    The irony is that if you turn that poll upside down it almost shows who is actually willing to do the killing?????? scary

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32) Warning Contains Irony

    “Pearl of great Price” sounds like Walmart 😉

  • Ian Gould writes: Nephi was the prophet who supposedly led the Israelites to the New World.

    Of course, most Mormons don’t take this as license to murder those who disagree with their faith – just as most Muslims disregard the Salafi interpretations of the Quran and the Hadiths.

    Although I suspect you’re more or less right about that, at least until one of their contemporary prophets declares that the Day of Judgment has arrived, we don’t know. The church of the Latter-Day Saints is an initiatory priesthood with several levels of doctrinal authority, and only their prophets and high priests know their fundamental beliefs, beyond their Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants ~ the amplification of the Book of Mormon, analogous to the Talmud. The Mormons definitely believe that they are the “faithful remnant” of ancient Israel, and that all others (including Christians) are “gentiles” ~ I’ve seen concrete evidence of this.

    The LDS church bears a striking resemblance to pre-Messianic Israel, and our friendly discussions with Mormon missionaries, based on their premise that they are (of) the Kingdom of God, have led to an understanding that muslims are a different brand of gentiles, not the “Mericats” of Brigham Young who are eternally hostile. We do not discuss which kingdom of God we believe they are, and we posit a companionate kingdom of the muslims, not a rival or hostile kingdom.

    They live in a very one-dimensional world, with “the heavens” (all seven) still “closed” to them, and they long to be “exalted with the gods” ~ a not uncommon desire. We (muslims) are more than content with restoration of our essential humanity from the corrosive effects of life in the world, which is an option for everybody ~ including the Mormons, who to all appearances live by their convictions.

    I think it’s just the better part of wisdom to know the origins and elaborations of those convictions, as it is with any faith communion including the various parties of muslims. Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith, elaborated the Mormon understanding, and September Dawn provides a wealth of insight into the directions of his thinking. The LDS church may have developed a more appropriate strategic understanding; the Reformed LDS church has published another library of “prophetic literature.”

    Beliefs, after all, motivate actions ~ and actions motivated by beliefs in a God of Wrath can differ substantially from actions motivated by belief in a Merciful God. God is both ~ but a lot of people have no idea of the magnitude of His Mercy.

  • Ian Gould

    “I assume Nephi is part of the book of Morman ?”

    Yes, Nephi was the prophet who supposedly led the Israelites to the New World.

    Of course, most Mormons don’t take this as license to murder those who disagree with their faith – just as most Muslims disregard the Salafi interpretations of the Quran and the Hadiths.

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32) Warning Contains Irony

    I assume Nephi is part of the book of Morman ?
    Thus Haji Dawud’s link to a filmù site unobtainable here in Europe .
    Thank goodness for Wiki pedia .
    An interesting bit of American History and Mit Romney is Mormon …….
    Although I prefer the story of why the White House was painted white 🙂

  • September Dawn ~ the other September 11, in 1857 ~ “a fact-based account of the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre, an act of religious fanaticism that claimed the lives of as many as 120 westward-bound settlers — men, women and children” ~ is an interesting commentary on “interpretation” of “that I might obtain the records according to his commandments” killings.

    Of course, it’s just an account by “gentiles,” so it can be ignored, as if “the secrets of this, the second token of the Aaronic priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, or penalty,” are not still “secret.”

    A general study of “religions” discloses that most have initiatory secret societies in which “inner teachings” are disclosed to “the worthy.” These “secrets” are made known outside the freemasonry of their respective faiths mainly when they inspire conduct so bizarre and contrary to the original teachings of the faith that they shock even those initiated into the “degrees” of the “Holy Orders.” Thus most of what is known about these conspiratorial “inner” congregations is the negative, while the good works that benefit all humanity are not known to come from the inner sanctums that grow on such bases as “You are those who love them although they love you not.”

    But it is definitely worthwhile ~ in my opinion necessary ~ to have sufficient knowledge of such renegade “religious” doctrines as “it’s necessary to murder someone otherwise innocent for the ‘crime’ of possessing records desired by another faction of one’s own faith.” “Pre-emptive war” is another twist on essentially the same theme, when you have a President who thinks God speaks to him.

  • iangould

    Actually that’s Nephi Book 1 Ch. 4 verses 10-18.

  • iangould

    “Percentage of people who said it is sometimes justifiable to target and kill civilians:

    Mormon-Americans 64%”

    “10 And it came to pass that I was aconstrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

    11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the aLord hath bdelivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had ctaken away our property.

    12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

    13 Behold the Lord aslayeth the bwicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is cbetter that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in dunbelief.

    14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: aInasmuch as thy seed shall keep my bcommandments, they shall cprosper in the dland of promise.

    15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the alaw of Moses, save they should have the law.

    16 And I also knew that the alaw was engraven upon the plates of brass.

    17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.

    18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.”

    Nephi I Verses 10-18

  • Hopper

    Yikes! Et tu, Eric Allen Bell? What is this world coming to? Defenders of Islam, oh you Believers, do not descend into despair, but do take note; when you have lost such a wonderfully enlightened progressive as Eric Allen Bell, what may lie ahead? What horrors?!?! The soul of Eric Allen Bell has abandoned you…but take heart, my friends!…maybe now he’ll get himself a decent haircut.

  • Géji

    > “i myself have many muslim friends who are anti-jihadist. they are appalled at violent acts by muslims as everyone should be. i and they are are also appalled at violent acts in the name of christianity (crusades, holocaust)”


    You’re right, everybody should be anti-violence regardless of their race, religion, culture or nationality, we should all reject and condemn the people who are committing any source of violence most of all wars, and regardless of ideology. But I just want to point out something, the Muslim extremists who are committing violence are not doing so in the name of Islam as such, because that would be like saying that Vietnamese fighting against foreign US occupation and aggression, did so in the name of Buddhism, which is not true, but they did it so to defend their land and people from US occupation and aggression. So in the mind of those Muslims it is the same thing, they’re thinking they are defending the Muslim Community from a foreign invader, Christian West lead by the USA, who are invading their Muslim lands, and its true that those are invading, occupying and murdering innocent civilians, so those guys think therefore by blowing stuff they’re defending Muslim lands from foreign occupier. But what makes them “extremist” is their tactic of “fighting”, as they themselves are killing innocent civilians, and more often than not, those very people they’re claiming they’re “defending” which are Muslim civilians, thus as such and fighting without permission from the community they’re thinking they’re defending, makes them extremists and opposite to Islam rules. And no, I know many uneducated westerners about Islam ignorantly think they can play “Islamic scholar” on the go as if playing with Barbie, and the extremists may falsely claim all they want that what they’re doing is “jihad”, but in Qur’anic term that cannot be called Jihad, as Jihad in the Qur’an is defined as struggle against anything that drives the self to a state of perdition, so what you may be looking for albeit your “jihadists”, is the word “Qital” (fighting), not Jihad, and the extremists cannot even claim they’re doing that, as Qital is only a last resorte for self-defense and comes with rules of engagement, which can only be done through institutionalisation, and declared by an Islamic authority such as “Caliph”, if external aggression occur, it comes with rules and regulations specific to Islam, brief Laws in case of armed conflict. As Islam does not condemn self-defense, every step of acts of Qital should be carefully planned to eliminate all possibilities of injury and death to the innocents. Thus, this establishes that the Muslim fights (Qital) for the eradication of wrong, not the eradication innocent people. In that sense they, those Muslim extremists cannot be called “jihadists”, a vocabulary not even in Islam dictionary. It is very important if the so-called West want the respect of Muslims, that they themselves need to give that respect in return, and to finally stop vilifying Islamic terms such as the term “Jihad”, but also many others, by giving those arab Islamic terms a vulgar distortion and foreign twist by “Englishsizing” them. But more importantly, to stop invading, occupying and aggressing Muslim lands, that would definitely get them Muslim respect and recognition as peaceful friend, which they the West don’t have right now.

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32) Warning Contains Irony

    Eric Bell smears Loonwatch by saying it is pro voilence . I challenge anyone to show this is so by quoting any article on this site. I suggest Lauren you look at any article your self either at random or under any heading .
    I think there are open minds here on Loonwatch but those blinded by hate cannot see that . 😉

  • lauren

    i myself have many muslim friends who are anti-jihadist. they are appalled at violent acts by muslims as everyone should be. i and they are are also appalled at violent acts in the name of christianity (crusades, holocaust) and other things. how does this not make me, and eric allen bell reasonable people? shouldn’t everyone be against violence. even if the people perpetrating it happen to belong to the same religious group as you? lets open our minds, everybody, and think about this.

  • Al

    Lol, EAB is an irrelevant little pissant

  • jojo

    I love Sheila Musaji. She is one of best anti-Loons.

  • mindy1

    What a nutter he is

Powered by Loon Watchers