The Black Book of the American Left: Volume IV: Islamo-Fascism and the War Against the Jews

dh1

Frontpage, April 15, 2015 by Jeffrey Herf:

To order David Horowitz’s “The Black Book of the American Left: Volume IV:  Islamo-Fascism and the War Against the Jews,” click here.

In this spirited and savvy collection of recent essays and speeches, David Horowitz argues that progressives, that is, left of center politicians, journalists and intellectuals have contributed to “undermining the defense of Western civilization against the totalitarian forces determined to destroy it.” Specifically, the threat comes from “the holy war or jihad waged by totalitarian Islamists in their quest for a global empire.” (p.1) These essays, many of which are lectures at university campuses or reports about those lectures, will reinforce the views of those who already agree that “Western civilization” is a good thing, that Islamism is a form of totalitarianism and that its Jihad is quest for a “global empire.” They may not convince those who think Western civilization is another name for racism, imperialism and war, that totalitarianism is an ideological relic of the Cold War and that an otherwise peaceful and tolerant Islam has been “hijacked” by violent extremists who misconstrue its texts and their meanings. Yet they may strike a nerve with those liberals who think it is absurd to deny the clear links between Islamism and terror and who, especially after the murders in Paris in January, understand that Islamism is a threat to the liberal traditions of Western politics and culture.

This volume addresses a by now much discussed paradox of our political and intellectual life. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 9/11, the liberal intellectual Paul Berman in Terror and Liberalism made the compelling case that the Islamist ideology that inspired the Al Qaeda terrorists emerged from a profoundly reactionary set of ideas which had lineages to Nazism and fascism. In Germany, Matthias Kuentzel, in his Jihad and Jew-Hatred:  Nazism, Islamism and the Roots of 9/11 examined in more detail the illiberal views of the 9/11 terrorists as well as the political and ideological connections between Islamism and Nazism. A number of us historians have documented those connections. The irony of the years since 2001, and especially of the Obama years, is that, with some exceptions, much of the sharpest criticism of the reactionary nature of Islamism and defense of classically liberal values has not come from the historic home of anti-fascism among leftists and liberals. Rather, as the 55, mostly short essays in this collection indicate, that critique has migrated to centrists and conservatives or those who are now called conservatives.

“Islamophobia,” the longest essay in the collection is co-written with Robert Spencer, also importantly draws attention to the international connections of Islamist organizations in the United States. The authors write that “the purpose of inserting the term ‘phobia’ is to suggest that any fear associated with Islam is irrational” and thus to discredit arguments that suggest a connection between Islamism and terror as themselves forms of bigotry. Horowitz and Spencer connect this criticism of the concept to discussion of the organizational connections between the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2005, the FBI seized the Northern Virginia headquarters of the Holy Land Foundation, then the largest Islamic “charity” in the United States. In a trial in 2007 that led to the conviction of the Foundation’s leaders on charges of supporting a terrorist organization, the prosecution entered a seized a remarkable document entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”(18)  The group’s goal was the establishment of “an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood, which adopts Muslim causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at directing and unifying Muslim’s efforts, presents Islam as a civilizational alternative, and supports the global Islam state wherever it is.”  Muslims, it continued “must understand their work in American is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” Horowitz and Spencer perform an important service in drawing attention to this document and to the political campaign that it has inspired.

The memo called for the creation of front organizations including the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Students Association, and the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Islamic Association for Palestine and the parent group of the Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR. Another front group identified in the Holy Land memo was the International Institute for Islamic Thought, said to have invented the term “Islamophobia.”  Horowitz and Spencer’s discussion of CAIR’s “Islamophobia campaign” is particularly interesting. In the Holy Land case, the US Department of Justice named CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator and produced evidence that it has received $500,000 dollars from the Holy Land Foundation to set itself up.  CAIR was created in 1994 as a spinoff of a Hamas front group, the Islamic Association for Palestine, a group that the US government shut down in 2005 for funding terrorism. CAIR has defined Islamophobia as “closed minded prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims” and has described anti-terror measures adopted by the US government as forms of “prejudice” and “hatred.” The authors argue that the use of such terms has been an effective instrument in blunting or stifling criticism of Islamism.

On American university and college campuses, the Muslim Students Association and “Students for Justice in Palestine” have sponsored “Israel Apartheid Weeks.” In recent years, the MSA has been particularly active at the campuses of the University of California in Davis, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles in the anti-Islamophobia campaigns. Remarkably, such efforts have received support from coalitions of leftwing student groups active in student governments. The authors write that “perhaps the chief asset possessed by the jihadists is a coalition of non-Muslims-European and American progressives—who support the anti-Islamophobia campaign,” one that “had a venerable antecedent in the support that progressives provided to Soviet totalitarians during the Cold War.” (p.48) Again, the remarkable aspect of the current coalitions between Islamists and leftists was that these leftists were making common cause with organizations famous for anti-Semitism, subordination of women to second class status or worse and deep religious conviction, a set of beliefs at odds with some of the classic values of the radical left in the twentieth century. Then again, in view of the anti-Zionist campaigns of the Soviet Union and its allies during the Cold War and the hostility of the global radical left to Israel in recent decades, such “Red-Green” leftist-Islamist coalitions of recent years are not so surprising.

Horowitz sees a parallel between the “secular messianic movements like communism, socialism and progressivism” and the religious creeds they replaced. “It is not surprising therefore, that the chief sponsors of the blasphemy laws and the attitudes associated with them have been movements associated with the political left. It is no accident that the movement to outlaw Islamophobia should be deeply indebted to the secular left and its campaign to stigmatize its opponents by indiscriminately applying repugnant terms to them like ‘racist.’”  The invention and application of the concept of Islamophobia “is the first step in outlawing freedom of speech, and therefore freedom itself, in the name of religious tolerance.”(55)

The remainder of this volume elaborates on these themes with twenty essays on Islamo-fascism, thirteen on the Middle East Conflict and eleven on “the Campus War against the Jews.” Horowitz’ reports on his many speeches at various campuses where some of the above mentioned Islamic organizations turn up to protest. There the front organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood, especially the Muslim Students Association, emerged to challenge his arguments about the links between Islamism and fascism. Two essays are particularly important—and depressing. In “Suicidal Jews” and “”Hillel”s Coalitions with Israel’s Enemies,” Horowitz describes instances in which liberal and left-leaning Jewish undergraduates turn their criticism towards him rather than towards the anti-Israeli activists on campus.

This fourth volume of Horowitz’s essays depicts the bizarre nature of our contemporary political culture in which leftists make common cause with Islamists, Israel is denounced as a racist entity while the anti-Semitism of the Muslim Brothers, Hamas and the government of Iran are non-issues for leftists, and the United States government refuses to state the obvious about the connection between Islamist ideology and the practice of terrorism. The defense of liberal principles has liberal advocates but as this valuable collection indicates the core of the defense has become a preoccupation of the center and right of American intellectual and political life. This volume is an important document of that endeavor.

Jeffrey Herf, Distinguished University Professor, Department of History, University of Maryland, College Park. His most recent book is Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World. His work in progress is entitled “At War with Israel: East Germany and the West German Radical Left, 1967-1989.”

Islam’s Message to “Islamophobes” – Shut Up or Else

imagescaok312n (2)UTT, by John Guandolo, April 16, 2015:

In a number of interviews and presentations recently, Understanding the Threat (UTT) has received questions about how our enemy uses the label of “Islamophobe” to silence and threaten those who speak honestly and factually about the threat of the Islamic Movement here and abroad.

In a brief attempt to review, we will simply look at three key pieces of information:  the Islamic Law of Slander, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) Cairo Declaration, and the OIC’s 10 Year Programme of Action.

In Sharia (Islamic Law), “Slander” is defined as to say anything about a Muslim or Islam he would dislike. (Umdat al Salik, Holding One’s Tongue).  Veracity of the statement is irrelevant.  Therefore, to factually explain to people that Sharia obliges Muslims to wage jihad (warfare against non-Muslims) until the entire world is under the rule of Sharia, can be considered “Slander” because the Muslim community does not want non-Muslims to know this right now.  You will know everything you need to know about Sharia when you are under the weight of it.

Slander is a capital crime in Islamic Law.

The OIC is the largest international body in the world, second only to the UN, and is made up of all 57 Islamic States on the planet.  Yes, 57 states.

In 1990, during the OIC’s Extraordinary Session, the Heads of State and Kings of every Muslim nation on earth approved the Cairo Declaration.  This document states that the entire Muslim world agrees with the International Declaration of Human Rights, insofar as it does not contradict Sharia.  To quote Articles 24 and 25:  “ARTICLE 24 – All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.  ARTICLE 25 – The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”

In other words, the Muslim world does not adhere to the rest of the world’s understanding of “Human Rights.”  In 1993, the OIC served the Cairo Declaration to the UN, thus putting the world on notice that beheading Christians, killing homosexuals, and subjugating women, were all in accordance with Islamic “Human Rights.”

In 2005, the OIC published their “Ten Year Programme of Action” in which they make “Combatting Islamophobia” a main focus of their plan.  It specifically highlighs the need to “combat defamation” of religion (read: “Islam”).  The Programme states:   “Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.”  Punishments for speech the Muslim world doesn’t “like.”  Here they are tying “Islamophobia” to the Islamic Law of Slander and demonstrating their desire to punish violators.

At the international level this is a gross assault on our rule of law, the foundational principles of Western civilization, and basis decency.  Nothing surprising here from a global Movement which beheads 8 year olds and puts their heads on spikes to line the roads, sets fire to people, and calls for the death of all Jews so they can go to Paradise.

Also see CJR’s page on the Threat to Free Speech

Jim Harbaugh: ‘Michigan Football Will Watch American Sniper!’

harbaughTruth Revolt, by Bradford Thomas, April 9, 2015:

Newly-hired Michigan head football coach Jim Harbaugh reacted to the controversy over a (temporally) canceled campus screening of American Sniper Wednesday by announcing that the football team would be watching the film regardless of what the university decided:

coach tweet

As TruthRevolt reported Wednesday, a group of about 300 Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) and Muslim students issued a collective letter earlier this week accusing the university of creating an “unsafe space” for students and “tolerating dangerous anti-Muslim and anti-MENA propaganda” by showing a film that contributes to “a culture of Islamophobia in America.” In response, Michigan’s Center for Campus Involvement canceled the screening and apologized for “causing harm” to students.

After getting hammered in the press for caving to a protest, Michigan reversed its decision. Late Wednesday, Michigan’s vice president of student life E. Royster Harper issued a statement calling the temporary cancelation “not consistent” with the university’s “high value” on the freedom of expression and announcing that the screening of Chris Kyle film was back on:

It was a mistake to cancel the showing of the movie ‘American Sniper’ on campus as part of a social event for students.

The initial decision to cancel the movie was not consistent with the high value the University of Michigan places on freedom of expression and our respect for the right of students to make their own choices in such matters.

The movie will be shown at the originally scheduled time and location. We recognize, however, that some students are uncomfortable with the content of the movie, and appreciate that concern.

Therefore, the university also will show an alternative movie, “Paddington,” in another location on campus at that same time and date to provide our students with additional options that evening.

The ‘Islamophobia’ Scam Returns

LEISURE USAFrontpage, March 6, 2015 by Robert Spencer:

In recent weeks, the terror group calling itself the Islamic State (aka ISIS and ISIL) has beheaded journalists and social workers, burned a pilot alive, and forced hundreds of captive women into sex slavery – all while citing Islamic texts to justify their actions and appeal for new recruits. A Muslim in the latest Islamic State beheading video cited two Qur’an verses (8:12 and 47:4) to refute “those who say [beheading] is cruel.” In New York Wednesday, a Muslim was found guilty of plotting to bomb the New York subway system. The previous day in London, a woman from Nigeria pleaded for asylum, as she faces certain death if she returns to her homeland: an Islamic court has sentenced her to die for being lesbian.

All this and a great deal more like it – a daily horror show of jihad attacks and plots, boasts of coming catastrophic attacks in the West, declarations of imminent conquest, and more, all carried out by people claiming to represent the truest and purest form of Islam  is why, according to a poll released last summer, only twenty-seven percent of Americans have a favorable view of Muslims. Yet as far as the hard-Left Center for American Progress (CAP) is concerned, people aren’t suspicious of Muslims and Islam because of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism, but because of “the efforts of a small cadre of funders and misinformation experts” which were amplified by an echo chamber of the religious right, conservative media, grassroots organizations, and politicians who sought to introduce a fringe perspective on American Muslims into the public discourse.”

This claim appears in the CAP’s new edition of its “Islamophobia” reportFear, Inc. 2.0: The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America,” by Matthew Duss, Yasmine Taeb, Ken Gude, and Ken Sofer. It might seem to be peculiarly tone-deaf of the CAP to release this report while the Islamic State is horrifying the world and attacks by lone jihadis (and regular threats that more are on the way) are becoming more frequent in the West, but that is most likely why they felt they had to release it now: with reality threatening to break through their fog of disinformation, they have to pour on more dry ice. 

It wasn’t accidental that Hitler’s Reich had an entire Ministry of Propaganda: lying to the public is a major job, as the cleverest of propaganda constructs is always threatened by the simple facts. CAP is trying to compel non-Muslims to disregard what they see every day — Muslims committing violence against non-Muslims and justifying it by referring to Islamic texts — and instead embrace a fictional construct: Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance. This takes a relentless barrage of propaganda, and “Fear, Inc. 2.0” is just the latest in a steady stream from CAP and its allies, which are exponentially wealthier and better-funded than the groups CAP vilifies in this report

“Fear, Inc. 2.0” is filled with assertions that white is black, and that your lying eyes are deceiving you. We’re told that I myself am “the primary driver in promoting the myth that peaceful Islam is nonexistent and that violent extremism is inherent within traditional Islam. CAP doesn’t offer any evidence for this being a “myth” – it doesn’t have to, as its Leftist constituency takes that as self-evident. 

But CAP flatters me, as it flatters all of us named in “Fear, Inc. 2.0,” simply by suggesting that we have such persuasive power that we can create a nationwide climate of hate and fear against MuslimsI cannot accept their proffered honor of being the “primary driver in promoting the myth that peaceful Islam is nonexistent.” Innumerable others have noted the same reality, including Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.

But neither Nyazee nor Ibn Rushd are prominent enough to claim the role of “primary driver in promoting the myth that peaceful Islam is nonexistent.” How about the Ayatollah Khomeini, who said: “There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” Better yet, how about Muhammad himself, who is depicted in a hadith saying: “I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought.” (Bukhari 1.31)

Another “don’t believe your lying eyes” moment in “Fear, Inc. 2.0” occurs when the report charges the David Horowitz Freedom Center with promoting “the myth that Muslim extremists infiltrated an array of political organizations on both the left and the right. How about the White House? In December 2012, while the Muslim Brotherhood was still in power in Egypt, the Egyptian magazine Rose El-Youssef boasted that Brotherhood infiltrators in the Obama Administration had changed American policy “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

It may have been an empty boast, but that would be hard to prove in light of Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Similarly, the CAP report claims (quoting Nathan Brown, a George Washington University professor) that the notorious captured internal Muslim Brotherhood document detailing U.S. Muslim groups’ strategy to work toward “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable house” was “the daydream of one enthusiast.” Brown doesn’t explain why a copy of this “daydream” turned up in the offices of the Holy Land Foundation (once the largest Islamic charity in the United States, shut down for funding Hamas) years after it was first written, but an even more telling indication that Brown and CAP are the enthusiasts doing the daydreaming when they dismiss this report is the fact that the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Muslim groups work indefatigably to oppose virtually every counter-terror measure that has ever been proposed or implemented. Stigmatizing defense against the jihad threat as “bigotry” isn’t trying to “sabotage its miserable house”? Pull my other leg.

I hope the next CAP report will focus on how the “Islamophobes” are so devastatingly effective that they have even been able to infiltrate mosques and Islamic schools, so as to convince young Muslims that the Islamic State is authentically Islamic and has a claim on their loyalties: over 20,000 foreign Muslims have now traveled from all over the world to join the Islamic State, indicating either that imams and other Muslim authorities are singularly failing to communicate to all too many young Muslims the true, peaceful Islam that CAP will charge you with “hatred” and “bigotry” for not believing exists, or that the “Islamophobes” have a reach far greater than Matthew Duss, Yasmine Taeb, Ken Gude, and Ken Sofer ever imagined even in their worst fever dreams.

I also hope that new CAP report will address motive. Nowhere does “Fear, Inc. 2.0” explain why these fiendish “Islamophobes” would care to devote their lives to spreading hatred and fear of a noble, oppressed minority group. Apparently they want us to believe that it’s for the money, but since CAP’s budget is so very much larger than those of all the “Islamophobic” groups combined, if money is all it’s about then the “Islamophobes” would be well-advised to run up the white flag and pick up a copy of How to Get Rich By Betraying One’s Friends and Principles, by David Brock. So is it racism? Then where are the supposedly well-organized, well-heeled groups of smear and fear merchants who are dedicating their time to vilifying Hindus, or Buddhists, or Mormons, or Hard-Shell Baptists?

The effect, intended or not, of the CAP report and others like it is clear enough. When CAP and its cohorts smear those who speak out against jihad and Islamic supremacism as “bigots” and “hatemongers,” they intimidate others into backtrackingapologizing, and looking the other way when they should instead be pressing the Muslim community to address the jihad problem realistically and back up its pro-forma condemnations of terrorism with honest work against the Islamic teachings that jihadists use to justify terror.

The perfect world for the likes of Matthew Duss, Yasmine Taeb, Ken Gude, Ken Sofer and other Islamophobia-mongers would be one in which no one speaks up against jihad violence and Islamic supremacism: they have never, ever seen a counter-jihadist for whom they had any positive words. This would render the U.S. and the West in general mute and hence defenseless before the advancing jihad. As the blood and chaos spreads, will Duss and his cohorts stand up and take a bow?

Who Is to Blame for the Chapel Hill Murders? The Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes Industry?

Accused: Craig Hicks, 46, is pictured entering the courtroom for his first appearance at the Durham County Detention Center on Wednesday, after he allegedly shot the three students to death on Tuesday

Accused: Craig Hicks, 46, is pictured entering the courtroom for his first appearance at the Durham County Detention Center on Wednesday, after he allegedly shot the three students to death on Tuesday

PJ Media, By Robert Spencer On February 13, 2015:

Muslims are under siege in the U.S. — don’t you know that? Roving bands of Islamophobes routinely harass and threaten innocent Muslims, and a well-heeled Islamophobia Network spends millions to demonize and vilify Muslims in the American public discourse. Things have gotten so bad that pious Muslim women fear to wear their hijabs in public – and when they do, they’re spat upon and worse. The climate of fear and hatred that the Islamophobes have so assiduously whipped up culminated in the horrific murder last Tuesday of three Muslims in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, by a psychopath seething with hatred for Muslims.

That’s the way numerous leftists and Muslims see life in Barack Obama’s America, but in reality, that scenario is almost wholly false. A psychopath really did murder three Muslims in Chapel Hill last Tuesday, but the rest is pure leftist mythmaking, providing an illustrative example of how the Left and the mainstream media ignore inconvenient facts and bend others in order to further their chosen narrative.

Who is Craig Hicks?

The problems with this narrative are many. From the looks of his Facebook page, Hicks is hardly the right-wing, anti-Muslim Islamophobic redneck of their hysterical fantasies; instead, he is a hardcore leftist and fan of the Huffington Post and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Those two are among his huge and revealing list of “Likes,” which shows him much more preoccupied with Christianity than with Islam. He likes the atheists Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Bill Maher, all of whom have criticized Islam, but his page includes none of their statements about Islam. He likes many anti-Christian groups but no groups that are critical of Islam, and he even likes a group called “Obama Backs Mosque Near Ground Zero: ‘This is America,’” praising Obama for supporting the Ground Zero Mosque.

Other “Likes” from Hicks’ Facebook page include Bill Nye The Science Guy; Sarah Silverman; Penn & Teller: Bullshit!; Stop the World, the Teabaggers Want Off; LGBT / Atheist Alliance; Scary Bible Quote of the Day; World Atheists: Lets Kick Islam and Christianity out of Africa; Merry christmyth; Pass The 28th Amendment – Complete Removal Of The Church From The State; The Rachel Maddow Fan Page; Pissing Off The Religious Right; Keep your Bible out of our Vaginas; Mitt Romney Sucks; Separation of Church and State; Still here? Silly Christians; Jesus McChrist; Denying Evolution Won’t Make Your God Any More Real; Dogs Against Romney; The Atheist’s Bible Commentary; Organization for Educating Misinformed Tea Party Patriots; GOPHypocrisy; Liberals Against Conservative Propaganda; Arrest the Pope and Tax Religion; Not wasting my Sundays at church; Network for Church Monitoring; Dominionism is destroying America; Christians vs. Atheists; Americans United for Separation of Church and State; Stop The Westboro Baptist Church!; and many, many more. Oh, and Gun Toting Liberal.

He likes no anti-Islam groups, and his Facebook page contains no criticism of Islam other than one comparison of “Radical Christians” and “Radical Muslims.” From the looks of all this at least, if Craig Hicks had been planning to commit a hate crime, it seems much more likely that he would have targeted “right-wingers,” Republicans, evangelical Christians, etc., than that he would have targeted Muslims because they were Muslims.

What’s more, Hicks’ wife has said:

I can say with absolute belief that this incident had nothing to do with religion of the victims’ faith, but it was related to a longstanding parking dispute that my husband had with the neighbors.

These killings were over parking, not Islam

The Chapel Hill Police said the same thing: these killings were over parking, not Islam. Karen Hicks added that her husband “often champions on his Facebook page for the rights of individuals. … He believes everyone is equal – doesn’t matter what you look like or who you are or what you believe.” U.S. Attorney Ripley Rand stated Wednesday:

“The events of yesterday are not part of a targeting campaign against Muslims in North Carolina,” and that there was “no information this is part of an organized event against Muslims.”

It is demonic madness to murder people over a parking space, but it is not the seismic event that the cold-blooded murder of three Muslims solely because they were Muslims would be. And so many decided to go with the old adage from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

 

The father of one of the victims insisted: “This was not a dispute over a parking space; this was a hate crime. This man had picked on my daughter and her husband a couple of times before, and he talked with them with his gun in his belt. And they were uncomfortable with him, but they did not know he would go this far.” He said his daughter told him: “Honest to God, he hates us for what we are and how we look.”

Is the sky falling on accusations of Islamophobia?

Curious that Craig Hicks would seethe with such hatred for Muslims that it would move him to murder, and yet never mention this hatred to his wife of seven years or give a hint of it on his Facebook page, where so many of his hates were on abundant display. Nonetheless, it was time to turn the legend into fact: Nihad Awad of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) thundered:

Based on the brutal nature of this crime, the past anti-religion statements of the alleged perpetrator, the religious attire of two of the victims, and the rising anti-Muslim rhetoric in American society, we urge state and federal law enforcement authorities to quickly address speculation of a possible bias motive in this case.

Duke professor Omid Safi (who is so nakedly dishonest that he once claimed that I had threatened to kill him) assumed that speculation was fact as he lamented:

There is a tendency to say, “This is a nice place, these eruptions of violence don’t belong here.” And yet here we are. This is, in all of the heartbreak and violence and sadness, where we are.

Islamic supremacist activist Linda Sarsour said the murder “sends a message to other young people in the Muslim community that the fear is valid.” Abed Ayoub of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) linked the killings to the film American Sniper (which Craig Hicks actually probably hates):

It may not be directly linked to the film, but the overall way that Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiment are moving in this country is portrayed in the words of those who watched American Sniper. The film gave us a look into how these individuals were feeling and for the first time we were getting raw, real messages – and they were frightening.

Where is the evidence of a hate crime?

Why did these activists and so many others assume that the killings were hate crimes despite the lack of any evidence that they were? Because for all their lamentations, they actually want and need hate crimes against Muslims, and in the absence of any significant number of actual ones, they have to invent them. Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslims have on many occasions in the past not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques.

Hamas-linked CAIR and other groups like it use hate crimes against Muslims to try to gain political points: Muslims are victims, you see, and part of their victimhood is that they’re subjected to unwarranted law enforcement scrutiny. Attacks on innocent victims can be and are used to try to deflect attention away from the reality of jihad terror and to blunt law enforcement efforts to stop that jihad terror. Hate crimes against Muslims are used as weapons to intimidate people into thinking it wrong to oppose jihad terror, for it will lead to the victimization of innocent Muslims. And so when Muslims are killed for any reason, as in this heinous crime in North Carolina, these disingenuous opportunists run with “hate crime” claims, no matter how much they have to trim the facts to do so.

It’s a far more well-financed and well-oiled machine than the fictional “Islamophobia Network” of leftist and Islamic supremacist myth – witness the growing avalanche of mainstream media stories lamenting “Islamophobia” after Hicks’ “Islamophobic” killings. The facts don’t matter; how they can be twisted to prey on people’s emotions and manipulate policy is all that does matter. We have seen this machine roll into especially cynical operation in the case of the psychopath Craig Hicks.

Related at the PJ Tatler: Obama: FBI Probing Possible Hate-Crimes Violation in Muslim Students’ Murders

What Actually Causes American Fear of Islam and Muslims?

by Daniel Pipes
Feb 13, 2015
Cross-posted from National Review Online, The Corner

An ambitious 81-page document, Fear, Inc. 2.0: The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America, just appeared from the Center for American Progress, a liberal Democratic organization. Unlike its first iteration, in which a group with a $40-million annual budget and deep ties to big business had the nerve to claim that seven much smaller institutions were overpowering the country through their financial clout, this one looks at what the alleged “Islamophobia network” actually does.

3073The report, written by Matthew Duss, Yasmine Taeb, Ken Gude, and Ken Sofer, makes for interesting reading. Its premise is that critics of Islamism (1) are really anti-Islamic and (2) have single-handedly distorted a the fundamental American value, namely a “basic respect for the rights of minority groups throughout the country.” According to the CAP study, “the views of anti-Muslim actors stand in stark contrast to the values of most Americans.”

By dint of hard work, however, “a well-funded, well-organized fringe movement can push discriminatory policies against a segment of American society by intentionally spreading lies while taking advantage of moments of public anxiety and fear.” This effort “takes many shapes and forms”: a general climate, cynical political efforts, and institutional policies. Despite some setbacks, continues the CAP narrative, the network’s efforts “continue to erode America’s core values of religious pluralism, civil rights, and social inclusion.”

Those fingered as part of this network (I am one) should be perversely proud of our accomplishment: Just a handful of lying individuals manage to subvert a core American value – and all this with what CAP itself estimated to be less than $5 million a year!

The (Hindu) Rama Temple in Lemont, Illinois, raises few issues.

The (Hindu) Rama Temple in Lemont, Illinois, raises few issues.

Another way of putting it: the United States hosts about as many Buddhists and Hindus combined as it does Muslims. Yet, when did Buddhists or Hindus try to change the existing order or engage in violence on behalf of their faiths? Who ever hears about them? Who fears them?But there is a more convincing reason why Americans fear Islam and Muslims. The news is filled almost daily and even several times daily with bulletins from one Islamist front or another. I hardly need rehearse the repertoire; just turn to the day’s headlines. ISIS and theCharlie Hebdo-like massacre most dominate the news, but Islamists are all the time winning unfavorable attention for themselves by making aggressive cultural demands (say, wearing a face-covering burqa in the courtroom), pushing the superiority of Islam (don’t dare say a negative word about Muhammad), or apologizing for some repulsive practice (such as honor killings or female genital mutilation).

Maybe it’s Islamists who are prompting powerful and spontaneous responses through their threatening behavior. Maybe we critics are not “intentionally spreading lies” but honestly interpreting Islamist aggression and supremacism. Maybe CAP and its ilk should blame the fear of Islam less on we critics and more on the Islamists themselves. (February 13, 2015)

Hijab Day at NP3 High School

NP3HighSchoolHijabDayJihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, Jan. 28, 2015

A Jihad Watch reader in the Sacramento area has sent me this flier (click to enlarge), showing that today is NP3 Hijab Day at NP3 High School. NP3 stands for Natomas Pacific Pathways Prep; the school is in the Natomas Unified School District in Sacramento. This all started with a student at NP3 High who is an intern for the Hamas-linked terror organization the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). This student gave a presentation about Islamophobia and Islam at what was a mandatory staff meeting that also included an official CAIR representative.

The school then now decided to sponsor an official “Hijab Day” in cooperation with Hamas-linked CAIR. The flier also shows that another Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization, the Muslim Students Association, is also involved. Every female member of the faculty and staff, and students as well, has been encouraged to wear a hijab today. NP3’s principal, Tom Rutten, has been strongly encouraging everyone to participate and wear one.

Please contact Tom Rutten and let him know, politely and courteously, that there are religion-and-state issues involved here, and also that public schools should not be working with groups that have demonstrable and proven links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Also ask him when is NP3 Priest Collar and Nun Habit Day, and when is NP3 Kippah Day — or is it only Islam that gets this treatment? Ask him when is NP3’s day to honor women and girls who have been brutalized and murdered for not wearing hijab. Ask him why he is celebrating a garment that is, for all too many women, a sign of oppression and misogyny. Rutten is at 916-567-5740.

Scott Dosick is President of the Board of Trustees of the Natomas Unified School District. He is at sdosick@natomas.k12.ca.us. Remember that over at Hamas-linked CAIR they will be licking their chops and ready to pounce on any indication that Rutten or Dosick have been getting “hate messages” or “threats.” Do not give them ammunition in their jihad against freedom: be polite, courteous and reasonable in all communications, limiting discussion to asking calmly why Islam is getting this preferential treatment in a public school.

3 terror attacks in 48 hours: Hey Islamapologists, what’s your excuse this time?

japanese_hostage-300x180By Allen West, Jan. 26, 2015

Over the past 48 hours, there have been three more terror attacks worldwide, but I doubt you’ve even heard about them:

1.In the Philippines, one person was killed and 48 injured when a car bomb exploded, which local authorities believe the al-Qaida-backed Abu Sayyaf group was behind – and of course we reported here how the Obama administration decided to end U.S. support against Islamic jihadism there.

2.The Taliban conducted a truck bomb attack at a gas station in Kabul near the military airfield there. Officials think it might have been a premature suicide attack; thankfully only two civilians were wounded.

3. ISIS executed a Japanese hostage by beheading and is still holding another under threat of execution, demanding an exchange for a female Islamic suicide bomber being held in Jordan.

Now mind you, this was just in the last 48 hours.

What gets me is how fast those “Islamapologists” in the West continue to push the narrative of the “hijacking of a peaceful religion” by a few radicals. Well, it seems to be more than a few, and what if this narrative is totally wrong? What if this “hijacked” narrative is just something being contrived in the West to advance a state of denial — such as we saw last week in President Obama’s State of the Union address and in his previous statements of “Let me be clear, ISIS is not Islamic” – even though the first the letter in ISIS stands for Islamic.

First of all, I suggest we stop using the phrase “radical Islam.” The proper classification should be “militant Islam” — that is if you’ve read the Koran, the hadiths, and the suras. If you understand the respective phases of Islam’s development and expansion and how it relates to world history — not progressive socialist or Islamist revisionist history — “hijacked a religion?” I don’t think so. As matter of fact, I said this back in 2009 on a panel in New York City moderated by Jeb Babbin, which included Andrew McCarthy and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Meyers. You can watch it here.

 

History does not agree with the “hijacked” reference — and that subject has been covered most recently by the Israeli paper, Haaretz.

As written by Salman Masalha, “One of the fundamental problems with Islam is the view that its doctrines – exactly as written, exactly as they were developed and forged in the Arabian desert in the 7th century – “are good for all times and all places.”

“The religious ideology that all Islamic scholars of all Islamic sects uphold rests on the Koranic text and the canonical traditions attributed to the Prophet Mohammed. According to Islam, the world is divided into two: the camp of the faithful, comprised of those who believe in the religion of Islam, and the camp of the infidels, which comprises the rest of the world, including Christians and Jews.”

“The infidels are divided into three categories: people of the book – the Jews and Christians … those who have a sort of book – the Zoroastrians … and those with no book – those who worship idols or the stars,” the Shi’ite scholar Al-Tusi wrote in the 10th century. And Islam’s attitude toward unbelievers nowadays is made very clear in the words of religious arbiter Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz, the former grand mufti of Saudi Arabia: “The Koran, the laws of the prophet and the general agreement among Muslims all teach us that Muslims have an obligation to be the enemies of the infidels – the Jews, the Christians and the rest of the idol worshippers.”

In the West we must stop finding any means possible to dismiss what Islamic doctrine and text commands. There is a reason why the flag of Saudi Arabia has a koranic verse and the sword of Muhammad. I don’t recall Jesus Christ carrying a sword, do you?

Once Muhammad departed from Mecca (first Mecca phase) and ended up in Medina he took a turn towards violence. The corresponding verses in the Koran reflect that and history does as well. Muhammad led some 20-25 raids — combat operations — the first being circa 622 AD with the Nakhla raid. The abrogated verses of the Koran results in the latter verses – the more violent once — superseding the previous “peaceful” verses — but they are all words and revelations from Allah.

This leads to the duplicitous and hypocritical nature of Islam — it means whatever it wants to mean, a religious buffet. And that’s why I say “radical Islam” is not the correct definition. There’s nothing radical about their text — as they see it. However, after the first Mecca phase to the present, Islam has been militant in its designs — proselytization and expansion has not been done by a peaceful means, but rather from the end of a sword.

So why this widespread sense of denial?

Mr. Masalha explains, “As Islamist terror appeared on the world stage over the past few decades, many Muslims cried out, claiming that such terror besmirched Islam and didn’t represent it. The terrorists have kidnapped Islam, they said. But the question that begs to be asked is, who kidnapped whom? Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that the Islamic texts are the ones that kidnapped the terrorists, not the reverse?”

“When reports emerged after a recent conference of Islamic scholars at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University that one religious arbiter had implied that members of ISIS were heretics, Al-Azhar was forced to issue a denial. Muslim religious scholars find themselves at a disadvantage compared to those who wave the banner of militant Islam – for reading the publications of these fundamentalist organizations shows that they derive their strength and inspiration from the very same foundational texts of Islam itself.”

But hey, I know that no matter how many facts I present, the Islamapologists will brand me as the Islamophobe. However, what about taking the militant Islamists at their word?

“These Islamists aren’t ashamed to proclaim their worldview in public. From their perspective, Islam is “an aggressive religion, a religion of war, a religion of jihad, a religion of beheadings and bloodshed,” as Hussein bin Mohammed wrote in an article published on an Islamist website under the title “The beheading issue.” “It’s neither beheading unbelievers nor terror that besmirch Islam,” he argued, but rather “all those who want Islam to be in the image of Mandela or Gandhi, without bloodshed and beheadings.” The provocative writer then added, “That isn’t the religion of Mohammed, who was sent out with his sword until Judgment Day; Mohammed, of whom the only chapter in the Koran that bears his name is called the war chapter. … All those who try to paint Islam as a religion of peace, doves and love … are doing so under the influence of the West’s false views and its evil ideas, which are being exported to the Islamic nation in order to weaken it.”

Nope, I’ll take the enemy at their word, and for what they believe. I will not be a member of the dismissive “coexist” crowd who do so only in fear of having to face this historic evil. So henceforth, I will be keeping track of everyone who comes out and supplies the false narrative that, “Islam is a peaceful religion that has been hijacked by radicals.”

Islam must have a reformation that brings it into the 21st century — leaving behind the savage and barbaric violence of the text from the 7th and 8th century. Until that happens, well, nothing else matters — as Mr. Masalha states, “only a root canal of Islam’s ideas can move the Arab and Muslim world toward modernity.”

But more importantly, some in the West urgently require another medical procedure to remove their heads from a certain lower part of their anatomy.

American Muslim group attacks “American Sniper,” demands Eastwood and Cooper denounce fictional “islamophobia”

american-sniper-bradley-cooper-640x480

Breitbart, by Pamela Geller, Jan. 6, 2015

One of the foundational principles of the Bush Doctrine was and is the oft-repeated dictum, “You are either with us or against us.” Little did President Bush know that the American Muslim community was…against us.

George Bush believed that the moderates in the Muslim world would denounce and destroy the devout (that is, the “radicals”). He was expecting a war within Islam that never actually took place. Imagine Bush’s dismay when he discovered that no one was behind him, like John Belushi in Animal House when he goes running out the front door shouting, “Who’s with me?!?,” only to discover that he is utterly alone.

The faked hate narrative that Muslim groups and leaders use is now the default talking point any time that jihad — or patriotism, for that matter — is being discussed. If Muslims spent as much time instituting programs in mosques and Islamic centers against jihad recruitment and the jihadic doctrine as they do fighting the myth of “Islamophobia,” the world would be a vastly safer place.

A Muslim-dominated group, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), alleges that Muslims have become targets of “violent threats” because of American Sniper. Nobody believes it. They are demanding that American Sniper director Clint Eastwood and actor Bradley Cooper denounce the alleged hateful language directed at Muslims because of the film.

This it is what they do: victim jihad. When one part of the Muslim world kills, the other half cries victimhood. Whack and whine. It is a distraction to get people to stop talking jihad and instead address their demands.

Apparently, the ADC is claiming that a couple of tweets offended their sensibilities. They want action! More like submission. It’s called free speech, brutes.

Why don’t Muslim groups demand that leaders of the Muslim world, imams, Al Azhar university, et al denounce the hateful, racist, anti-semitic, misogynist, anti-kuffar language in the Qur’an that is responsible for all of these Muslim wars across the world?

The idea that the film “glorifies war and sanitizes [Chris] Kyle,” as the ADC claims, is laughable. The only war talk or war movie that the left enjoys is a war in which the US loses or stands down. The left demands that we hang our heads in shame if we triumph. Which is why American Sniper is such an invigorating breath of fresh air.

As for “sanitizing Kyle,” let’s get real. It is the enemedia and the elites that sanitize jihad and Islam. And they do it every day, in every news story. Hollywood doesn’t just sanitize jihad and Islam; they avoid them at all costs. It is the gravest threat to freedom, and Hollywood pretends that it doesn’t exist.

As my colleague Daniel F. points out:

Now it’s American Muslims who are complaining about ‘violent threats,” allegedly incited by the hit movie American Sniper. And this time the media is trumpeting this story. Two rules of history converge here:

1) When Muslims in an a non-Muslim country reach a certain critical mass, they seek to dominate the surrounding community – and then move on from there. cf. Britain, Germany, Sweden and France, inter alia.

2) Free speech is unknown in the Muslim world, actually it’s anathema. So it starts with trying to shut us up and stopping us from casting Islam in a negative light. And does it work? For one thing, you can be certain the entertainment industry is now poring over their scripts and deleting “offending” sections. Other “projects” will simply bite the dust. Of course, Obama didn’t need cajoling. As soon as he took office he banned certain phrases from the government’s lexicon that might reflect poorly on the Muslim religion. Makes you wonder what that man is all about, doesn’t it?

For the record, I saw the film back in December when it was first given a very limited release — just two theaters in New York City. I loved it. I tweeted that it was the best film in decades. It’s hardly a rah-rah cheerleading film. It is a film about a deeply good and decent man, a true American patriot.

The record breaking box-office numbers show how out of touch the elites are with the American people. And that is even more true of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

Pamela’s temporary site:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/pamela_geller/2015/01/american-muslim-group-attacks-american-sniper-demands-eastwood-and-cooper-denounce-fictional-islamop.html

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here.

Islamophobic Bigotry: New FBI Hate Crime Stats Tell the Shocking Story

Published on Jan 19, 2015 by PJ Media

The latest FBI hate crime stats bring shocking news for Americans who know all too well about the Islamophobic backlash that Muslims have endured after terror attacks. Brace for it: Fully 2.3 percent of hate crimes were anti-Islamic! Scott Ott calls on President Obama to address the “savage inequality.”

Fear of an Anti-Muslim Backlash

rf-450x280Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Jan. 13, 2015: (h/t Vlad Tepes, who really, really wants you to read and share this) 

It used to be that the media would at least wait a day before sweeping the latest victims of Muslim terrorism into the trash to refocus on the looming “anti-Muslim backlash” that never actually comes.

The increase in Muslim terrorism however has made it risky for the media to wait that long. 24 hours after a brutal Muslim terrorist attack, there might be another brutal Muslim terrorist attack which will completely crowd out the stories of Muslims worrying about the backlash to the latest Muslim atrocity.

The massacre at Charlie Hebdo was quickly followed by a massacre at a kosher supermarket and somewhere in between them the Islamic State in Nigeria had wiped out the populations of sixteen villages.

With so many Muslim attacks crowded together, the media had no choice but to take a deep breath and dive in with its “Muslim backlash” stories.

The Voice of America ran its “Muslims fear backlash” piece while the bodies were still warm. The Los Angeles Times rushed out its “Muslims fear backlash” story before the Kosher supermarket massacre. It quoted the Muslim spokesman for the National Observatory Against Islamophobia asserting that it is Muslims who suffer after such attacks. Muslims however weren’t the ones who suffered. The four dead Jews at a Kosher supermarket did the suffering at the hands of a Muslim gunman.

While Muslim murderers were still prowling France for victims, the media was making the story about the perpetrators, not the victims.

And Muslims around the world lined up to join the “Fear of a Backlash” party like it was an exclusive nightclub. Both Belgian and Swedish Muslims claimed to be afraid of a backlash after the Paris attacks. At least those Swedish Muslims who weren’t calling for Allah to “multiply such attacks.”

Even Detroit Muslims got in on the act. Dawud Walid, executive director of CAIR in Michigan, claimed, “We are concerned about backlash against Muslims in the west.”

Walid had endorsed the historical Islamic mass murder of Jews on Twitter and stated in a sermon, “Who are those who incurred the wrath of Allah? They are the Jews, they are the Jews.”

Even while Jews were set to be murdered by a fellow exponent of Walid’s anti-Semitic ideology, the media was pandering to his phony claims of victimization thousands of miles away.

The Muslim backlash narrative insisted that the real victims weren’t Yohan Cohen, Yoav Hattab, Philippe Braham and Francois-Michel Saada dying in a Kosher supermarket in France, but Dawud Walid, the anti-Semitic spokesman for a hate group closely linked to terrorism over in Michigan.

Is it really a backlash that Muslims fear or a moral reckoning?

In the rush to make bigots like Walid the victims, instead of the actual men and women being murdered in the name of his violent ideology, the hard questions about the connection between the historical Islamic anti-Semitism bandied about by Dawud Walid and the modern massacres of Jews go unasked.

The murder of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists had its roots in an Islamic political and legal tradition of punishing blasphemy that has continued uninterrupted for over a thousand years. The murder of four Jews in a Kosher supermarket was part of a great Islamic tradition that began with Mohammed. The defenders of the “Prophet” began by killing blasphemers and then continued his work by killing Jews.

Muslims are not the victims of the Hebdo massacre. They are not the victims of mass murder in a Kosher supermarket. They are not the victims of the Sydney Siege.

They are the perpetrators.

When the media rushes to print interviews with Muslims claiming to suddenly be terrified of an imaginary backlash, it is marginalizing and silencing the real victims of Muslim violence who have been the subjects of a Muslim assault for over a thousand years complete with literal lashings.

Not every Muslim supports what happened, but the history and theology of Islam support the ends of silencing blasphemers and killing Jews, if not necessarily the provocative individual means.

The root cause of Islamic violence is Islam. Everything else, from poverty to YouTube videos, is subsidiary at best.

The cries of “Islamophobia” and the claims of a backlash silence the victims of Muslim terror and encourage social blindness to the next Muslim attack against Jews, Christians, Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists and countless others.

The Muslim backlash story is a great media tradition that dates back to at least September 11. While the streets of downtown Manhattan were still streaked with the ashes of the dead, the media began running stories about Muslims who were changing their clothes and putting up American flags out of fear that the maddened patriotic rabble would shortly begin massacring Muslims.

The mass anti-Muslim riots after September 11 never materialized; just as they never materialized after the Sydney Siege in Australia or the latest Muslim massacres in France.

The worst thing the media came up with in Australia, after touting its phony #Illridewithyou hashtag warning that Muslims were being persecuted, was three men and one woman holding up a sign reading, “Death to ISIS; Get Out You Rag-Headed F___s.”

They were immediately interviewed by police on possible charges of Isisphobia.

If the police had been as assertive in going after every Muslim in Australia waving a “Behead all those who insult the Prophet” sign, Australia would have been a lot safer.

And if the Australian media had been as aggressive in going after Sheikh Monis, as it did after a few young men waving Australian flags on a shopping center roof, the murder of two Australians in a café might not have happened.

But instead of fighting Jihadists, the media and politicians are determined to fight the threat of a backlash to Muslim terrorism. The obsession with the backlash however implicitly admits the existence of Islamic terror and sidelines it to instead focus on the reaction to it as the greater threat.

On one side are bodies heaped across Europe and America. On the other is the occasional slice of pork on a mosque door, a little graffiti scrawled on a wall or a dirty look on public transportation.

One is genocide and the other is petty vandalism.

We don’t need any more earnest interviews in which Muslims claim that they are the real victims of Muslim terrorism because they now feel “unwelcome” when the bodies of non-Muslims still lie in the morgue.

Try comparing an “unwelcome” feeling to being dead.

It is that sense of self-pitying Muslim victimization that leads easily to Muslim violence. Violence is often sanctioned by victimhood. That Muslims believe themselves to be the victims is nothing new. The Nazis also believed that they were the victims. So did the Muslim killer in a Kosher supermarket who claimed that ISIS, with its mass rapes and genocidal campaign, was the victim of French intervention.

If European Muslims really want to end atrocities like the ones that took place in Paris, instead of making themselves into the victims, they should examine the complicity of their religion, their politics and their sense of victimization in perpetrating them.

Muslim Leaders to Hold ‘Stand with the Prophet’ Rally in Texas

Koran reading, Lyon, Rhone, France, EuropeWashington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, Jan. 12, 2015:

Muslim leaders from across America will gather in Texas this weekend to hold the annual Stand With the Prophet in Honor and Respect conference, a weekend forum that is being billed as a “movement to defend Prophet Muhammad, his person, and his message,” according to event information.

The Saturday event, which seeks to combat “Islamophobes in America” who have turned the Islamic Prophet Muhammad “into an object of hate,” according to organizers, comes just a week after radicalized Islamists in France killed 17 people.

The victims died in events that began with the shooting attack on French newspaper Charlie Hebdo for its satirical cartoons that skewered the prophet.

Organizers of the event place the blame for Islam’s bad reputation on the media and so-called American Islamophobes who have “invested at least $160 million dollars to attack our Prophet and Islam,” according to the conference web page.

Keynote speakers at the event will include Georgetown University professor John Esposito, founding director of the school’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which has come under fire for, among other things, hosting 9/11 Truthers and a member of Egypt’s Nazi Party.

Also scheduled to attend the forum is controversial New York-based Imam Siraj Wahhaj, who was an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings trial. Wahhaj has called the FBI and CIA the “real terrorists” and expressed a desire for all Americans to become Muslim, according to the New York Post.

Organizers of the conference claim that the media and Islamophobes in America are the main reason why Islam and its prophet have such a bad reputation in the Western world.

“This is not an event. It is the beginning of a movement,” organizers write on their website, which blames Americans for giving Islam a bad name. “A movement to defend Prophet Muhammad, his person, and his message.”

“All these accusations were invented by Islamophobes in America,” the group claims. “As we celebrate the Prophet in our now annual, nationwide event: Stand with the Prophet, we recommit ourselves to rectify his image, peace be upon him.”

The event seeks to capitalize on outrage over cartoons and other materials mocking Mohammed in popular culture.

“Frustrated with Islamophobes defaming the Prophet?” the event materials ask. “Fuming over extremists like ISIS who give a bad name to Islam? Remember the Danish cartoons defaming the Prophet? Or the anti-Islam film, ‘Innocence of Muslims’?”

The event is being backed by several Muslim groups, including SoundVision, an Illinois-based website that provides advice and products to Muslims; RadioIslam, an AM radio station based in Chicago; and MuslimFest.

It will take place Saturday evening at the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas.

The goal of the forum, which costs $20 to attend, is to raise money to fund a “Strategic Communication Center for the Muslim community, which will develop effective responses to anti-Islamic attacks, as well as to train young Muslims in media.”

This center will be equipped to respond to insults to the prophet, such as when publications run cartoons critical of Mohammed.

“When real events warrant, like the Danish Cartoon controversy, Sharia ban, Quran burning, Boko Haram kidnappings. [Islamic State] brutality, etc., we articulate fresh talking points and content quickly, and in a timely manner, working with professionals to disseminate it through community spokespersons and our allies,” organizers state on their website.

Meanwhile, a German newspaper that re-ran Charlie Hebdo satirical cartoons of Mohammed was firebombed over the weekend, according to reports.

The Muslim groups hosting the Stand with the Prophet event blame the media for fomenting the wrong ideas about Muslims. The site promoting the forum includes a Pew survey finding that the media is the largest influence on the public’s opinion about Muslims.

“Media is making the life of Muslims difficult by turning our neighbors against us,” the website states.

Martin Kramer, a Middle East expert and president of the Shalem College in Jerusalem, criticized Georgetown’s Esposito for participating the Stand with the Prophet forum.

“John Esposito favors ‘incitement to hatred’ legislation, under the rubric of religious freedom, that would effectively trump freedom of expression,” Kramer said. “‘Belief as well as unbelief needs to be protected,’ he has written. ‘Freedom of religion in a pluralistic society ought to mean that some things are sacred and treated as such.’”

“Rallies such as the one Esposito will address have one purpose: granting Islam a protected status, and denying that protection to its critics,” Kramer said.

Esposito did not respond to an email seeking comment about his participation in the event. A Georgetown University spokesman also did not respond to an email request for comment.

Phone calls to SoundVision, the group sponsoring the event and hosting information about it online, were not answered or returned. An email to the site’s informational address also was not returned.

Patrick Poole, a terrorism expert and national security reporter, said the conference is part of larger campaign to blame some in America for the negative impression of Muslims in the West.

“This is a yet another manifestation of ‘Islamophobia’-phobia,” Poole said. “The conference organizers invoke an ‘Islamophobia hate machine’ based in the U.S. that is responsible for defaming Muslims worldwide but the events of the past week and other recent attacks have done more to damage the image of Islam than any other factor.”

The Muslim community must take responsibility and stop blaming the West for Islam’s faltering image, Poole said.

“What this conference makes clear is that the Muslim community needs to find better leadership. The jig is up on Islamic leaders who rush to the microphones to denounce terrorism, only to find they justify and support terrorism when speaking inside their mosques or conferences,” Poole said.

“The standard message that any terrorist yelling ‘Allahu Akhbar’ has nothing to do with the Muslim community while any graffiti on a mosque is a sign of widespread ‘Islamophobia’ just isn’t selling any more,” he added. “Rather than revising their talking points, they’re doubling down on their narrative and it will only serve to isolate the Muslim community even further.”

Action Alert: Garland Independent School District (Texas) to host Islamist conference to fight Islamophobes

B6neObzCAAAOBd2

Florida Family Association, Jan. 6, 2015:

Texas school district to host Islamist conference to fight Islamophobes.

Click here to send your email voicing concern to Garland Independent School District officials.

The Curtis Culwell Center is hosting a conference titled “Stand with the Prophet in Honor and Respect” that calls out “Ready to defeat Islamophobia?” according to the Sound Vision Foundation, “a not for profit organization serving Muslims.”   This event is scheduled for Saturday, January 17, 2015 @. 5:00 pm.
The Curtis Culwell Center is a Garland Independent School District property.

The Sound Vision Foundation’s web site states in part:

Ready to defeat Islamophobia?

This is not an event. It is the beginning of a movement. A movement to defend Prophet Muhammad, his person, and his message. Salla Allahu Alaihe wa Sallam.
 
This benefit will raise funds to establish a Strategic Communication Center for the Muslim community, which will develop effective responses to anti-Islamic attacks, as well as to train young Muslims in media.

Here are the conference speakers.

Imam Siraj Wahhaj (according to The Clarion Project)

  • Wahhaj was listed as an “unindicted person who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
  • Wahhaj supports the implementation of Sharia (Islamic law) governance, including its criminal punishments. “Islam is better than democracy.  Allah will cause his deen [Islam as a complete way of life], Islam to prevail over every kind of system, and you know what?  It will happen,” he has preached.
  • In September 2013, the NYPD justified its surveillance of Masjid at-Taqwa by pointing to evidence of terrorist and criminal activity there. The assistant imam is suspected of using the mosque to raise money for terrorist groups.
  • Wahhaj has been a Vice President of the Islamic Society of North America since 1997 and was a member of the North American Islamic Trust’s Board of Advisors from 1989 to 1993.
  • For much more information on Imam Siraj Wahhaj go to The Clarion Project

Abdul Malik Mujahid (one who wages jihad), (according to CreepingSharia) said “Qital [killing] is an essential element of Islam. And sometimes you don’t like it. Qital is ordained upon you, though it is hateful to you, but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you….And one example is, now we have 60 or so Muslim countries, and not a single one of them wants to go for Qital and Jihad for Bosnia. Qital is ordained upon you though it is hateful to you.”

It is truly disappointing that a Garland Independent School District property is hosting an event that is aimed at fighting against honest, God fearing Americans who have legitimate concerns about the Islamist movement in America.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to voice concerns to Garland Independent School District officials about this event.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.

Please click here to send your email to Garland Independent School District officials.

Contact information:

Garland Independent School District
Harris Hill Administration Building
501 S. Jupiter
Garland, Tx 75042
(972) 494-8201

Bob Morrison, Ed. D., Superintendent of Schools
bmorrison@garlandisd.net

Linda Chance, Ed.D., Deputy Superintendent of Instruction
LLChance@garlandisd.net

Rene Barajas, Ph.D., Deputy Superintendent of Business Operations
rbarajas@garlandisd.net

See more contact information at Florida Family Association

Muslim Supremacist Leaders Go After Facebook and Twitter Demanding Islamic Speech Restrictions

facebookBy Pamela Geller:

While jihadists in Nigeria, Congo, the CAR, the Philippines, Syria, Iraq et al wage their bloody holy war against freedom, individual rights and the “other,” their stealth counterparts are waging the same war insidiously but just as fiercely in the West.

Islamic attacks across Africa and the Middle East are not condemned by Muslim leaders in the West. Who is in their crosshairs? Those who oppose the ideology that inspires those attacks. What are they demanding? Imposition of the blasphemy laws under the sharia — “do not offend or criticize Islam.”

Muslim gunmen storm a building in Libya and go”room to room” in their residence at 2:30 a.m. Saturday and asked for identification papers to separate Muslim workers from Christians….the gunmen handcuffed the Christians and drove away.

Just this week:
–Yesterday, Muslim gunmen storm a building in Libya and go”room to room” demanding identification papers to separate Muslim workers from Christians….the gunmen handcuffed the Christians and drove away.”
–Over the past two days, scores of Christians in Nigeria were slaughtered in jihadi attacks.
–Muslims torched close to 1,000 cars in France on New Year’s eve.
–Jihadi commanders in Russia pledge allegiance to Islamic State’s Caliph al-Baghdadi.
— Iranian police arrested 50 women for “un-Islamic” dress.
–Jihad hostage murderer Man Haron Monis delivered chilling religious lectures to packed Sydney mosques.
— A hijabed homicide bomber killed many in a New Year’s triple jihad bombing Kill 7 in Nigeria.
–An instruction manual was published for devout Muslim mothers in the Islamic State: How to raise a jihadi-baby.
–A Muslim brutally tortures and honor murders his 10-year-old daughter for “adultery.”

Here’s the headline in The Evening Standard: “Twitter and Facebook slammed over huge increase in Islamophobic postings.”

And this is what Yahoo News and multiple news outlets are running today without comment. These newspapers will suffer the same censorship they are demanding of us, the individual. Freedom of the press is the first casualty of the sharia.

It is stunning and stupefying. Discredited liar and Muslim extremist Fiyaz Mughal is given an extraordinary platform by the largest and most influential media outlets to promote the sharia and defame the few who dare speak of jihad and its victims.

Mughal and leading Muslims organizations in the US, UK, Canada and Australia want to destroy free speech. Going after Twitter and Facebook would essentially do that. The only place to get news the media won’t cover is here and on websites like this — Jihadwatch, The Religion of Peace, Blazing Cat Fur, Creeping Sharia, etc and YOU: YOU share these news stories on Facebook and Twitter. YOU get the word out. YOU are the soldiers in the information battlespace. YOU are fighting the great fight. Islamic supremacists knows this. They have enormous funds and fanatics pounding away at the freedom we love.

Targeting Facebook and twitter is targeting YOU.

The article is all in Islamic codespeak. “Anti-racism groups” — Islam is not a race. These are Islamic supremacist groups who mean to impose the draconian blasphemy laws of the Shariah on free societies.

Do you think this can’t happen? The UK banned Robert Spencer and me merely because we speak against jihad and sharia. It can happen and will if we don’t fight back. Look at how Facebook and Twitter are kowtowing and groveling to the discredited liar Fiyaz Mughal: “By working with community groups like Faith Matters, we aim to show people the power of counter speech and, in doing so, strike the right balance between giving people the freedom to express themselves and maintaining a safe and trusted environment.”

Read more 

Also see:

If two or more Muslims participate in a gang rape, is it wrong to say “Muslims commit gang rape”? The answer to that question should be obvious. The only thing that’s understated is that it’s only two. All across the world, the overwhelming – yes OVERWHELMING – amount of heinous acts are being committed by Muslims. We’re having difficulty keeping up with Muslim gang rapes taking place in just Europe alone.

Yet, Facebook and twitter are being accused of fanning the flames of Islamophobia by not censoring posts that point out atrocities and crimes committed by Muslims.

The Top Anti-Muslim Hate Crime Hoaxes of 2014

Navjoat Aulakh

Navjoat Aulakh

Frontpage, by Robert Spencer, Dec.29, 2014:

On Christmas morning, a man drove up to the Islamic Cultural Center in Fresno, threw rocks through the windows, and then entered the center and destroyed things inside. The local ABC outlet, KFSN, reported Friday that “Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer says it is clear the incident is a hate crime which is why the FBI is also investigating this case.” But on Saturday, it turned out that the incident was not an “anti-Muslim hate crime” at all: the vandal was Asif Mohammad Khan, a Muslim. The destruction at the Islamic Cultural Center in Fresno was yet another in a long series of fake hate crimes designed to prop up the fiction that Muslims in the U.S. are routinely targets of discrimination and harassment.

According to Khan’s sister Samia, the vandal is (like the recent French attackers who screamed “Allahu akbar” while trying to kill infidels) mentally ill. She also said that he was a devout Muslim who prayed five times daily. Dyer revealed that Khan had in recent days written that Osama bin Laden was the most inspirational person in his life. Dyer explained that Khan’s vandalism of the mosque “was not geared towards the Islamic community, it was not geared to the Islamic faith or any of those things and was simply to get back at a few people at the center who had belittled him and in his eyes bullied him.”

Dyer and other law enforcement authorities were extremely unlikely to consider it as they investigated Khan’s crimes, but the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslims have on many occasions in the past not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques. CAIR and other groups like it want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they can use them for political points and as weapons to intimidate people into remaining silent about the jihad threat.

This has happened many times in 2014. Here are five of the most egregiously manipulative examples:

1. The Saleh and Akbar viral video.

In October, the Muslim bloggers Adam Saleh and Sheikh Akbar released a video entitled “Racial Profiling Experiment.” It showed the duo in Western clothing, coming to blows in front of an indifferent NYPD cop. In the second part of the video, they pass by the same cop in Muslim garb, arguing mildly – only to be harassed and frisked by the same policeman.

The video went viral. The Huffington Post hysterically proclaimed that it offered a “small glimpse into the ugly world of racial profiling.” Hamas-linked CAIR called for an investigation. But then it turned out that the whole thing had been staged. The Smoking Gun called the video a “cynical and duplicitous attempt to capitalize on New York City’s documented racial profiling problems.”

2. The German mosque arson.

Another “Islamophobic” hate crime took place in Germany in February, when there was an arson attack at the Central Mosque in Cologne. But in October, a Muslim who had been held in a psychiatric ward ever since he had been arrested (as the mainstream media and law enforcement officials have now apparently agreed that all Muslims who commit acts of violence are mentally ill) confessed to having set the fire.

“I wanted to make a clear sign,” the arsonist explained. “Because they treated me badly at the Koran school. It has always hurt me.” He also had tried to burn down two other mosques; it wasn’t reported whether or not he had been to Qur’an school and been treated badly in all three. But until he was apprehended, his arson attacks provided rich material for the “Islamophobia” mythmakers.

3. The burned Qur’ans in Dearborn.

Last June, after three burned Qur’ans were found in front of the Karbalaa Islamic Educational Center in Dearborn, the mosque’s imam, Sheikh Husham Al-Husainy met with lawyers to discuss his proposal for a statute criminalizing the desecration of holy books. “We want all of the religions to cooperate with us,” he declared, “to bring respect to the word of God, whether the Quran, Bible, or Torah.”

But as it turned out, the Qur’an barbecuer was none other than a Muslim named Ali Hassan Al-Assadi. Al-Husainy opined that al-Assadi was (surprise, surprise) “mentally unstable.” Crazy or not, the discovery that al-Assadi had burned the Qur’ans threw a large monkey wrench into al-Husainy’s plans to use the incident as the cornerstone of his campaign against the freedom of expression.

4. The Montclair State University attack.

Combine the relentless Muslim striving for victimhood with the cult of victimhood on college campuses these days, and even non-Muslims get into the faked hate act. Last April at Montclair State University in New Jersey, a student claimed that three white men in jeans and hoodies assaulted him. They called him an “Islamic terrorist.”

MSU police began an investigation, only to find that the whole incident was a hoax: a student named Navjoat Aulakh had filed a false report. Aulakh may not even be a Muslim. His full name is Navjoat Singh Aulakh; “Singh” is a name closely associated with Sikhs. The Aulakhs are a Jat clan from the Punjab area, and while many Jats are Muslims, the name Singh here suggests that this young man is himself a Sikh. His Facebook page gives no sign that he cares about much of anything but sports and babes, but apparently he does have some significant political concerns. If he is a Sikh, this would by no means be the first time that Sikhs have served as useful idiots for the Islamic supremacist victimhood posturing enterprise. Sikhs even stood with Hamas-linked CAIR to call for the allowance of hijabs on an amusement park go-kart ride that had already seen one Muslima killed as her hijab was caught in the axle.

In this case, a Sikh apparently tried to aid the false Muslim victimhood narrative. And failed.

5. The Shaima Alawadi murder.

Last April in El Cajon, California, an Iraqi Muslim named Kassim Alhimidi was found guilty of murdering his wife, Shaima Alawadi, after she had told him that she wanted a divorce.

Before Alhimidi was arrested, this murder was widely reported as an “Islamophobic hate crime”: a note was found by Alawadi’s body that read, “Go back to your country, you terrorist.” Leftists and Islamic supremacists made a great deal of this, claiming that the murder was the work of an “Islamophobe” who hated Shaima Alawadi for wearing a hijab. They even staged a campaign, “One Million Hijabs for Shaima Alawadi.”

Reza Aslan, the celebrated author of Zealot, bashed out a sub-literate tweet blaming Pamela Geller and me for the murder: “If a 32 year old veiled mother is a terrorist than [sic] so am I you Islamophobic fucks Gellar [sic] Spencer et. [sic] al. Come find me.” This tweet indicated how much mileage the “Islamophobia” propaganda machine thought it could get from the Alawadi murder in its efforts to intimidate people into thinking it wrong to oppose jihad terror.

Yet it was another fake hate crime. And since the mainstream media remains so uncritical about Muslim claims of having been victimized, there will be many more in 2015.

Also see: