Tag Archives: Islamophobia Propaganda

CAIR Openly Attacks Moderate Muslim Group

Posted on by
1

There’s a power struggle in the Muslim world— between the moderates and the Islamists, including in America — and CAIR intends to win.

FaarooqIP

From a video of Abdullah Faarooq, an imam at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center.

By Ryan Mauro:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is yet again undermining its own “moderate” credentials by slamming its Muslim rivals (and true moderates) for being part of an “Islamophobia” network and exposing its own Islamist agenda in the meantime.

In its latest newsletter, CAIR promotes — as the top item — an article on how its rival, the American Islamic Congress (AIC) is funded by “America’s Islamophobia network.”

CAIR quotes from the article, “Despite its claim to promote tolerance, the AIC has depended on substantial support from the very same elements that fought tooth and nail to sabotage the Islamic Society of Boston …”

As reported by the Clarion Project, the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center has strong Muslim Brotherhood ties and its extremism is well documented. Any moderate Muslim organization should have been fighting against it. A Muslim scholar recently talked with the Clarion Project about the radicalism he saw at the Islamic Society of Boston in 2003 and how he was sued by the mosque for speaking out.

CAIR calls itself “America’s largest Islamic civil liberties group.” The federal government has a different description of the group: An entity of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism-financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation.

CAIR, the “civil liberties group,” chose to attack the American Islamic Congress (AIC). CAIR’s priority wasn’t responding to a hate crime against an innocent Muslim, nor was it taking up the cause of Egyptian-Muslim protesters against the Muslim Brotherhood. Its priority was telling Muslims that the AIC is a traitor.

The article that CAIR is promoting was written by Max Blumenthal, a journalist who speaks at their events and lambasts CAIR’s opponents as “Islamophobes.” The opening of the article provides some insight into CAIR’s motivation.

It recalls how Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick replaced the imam of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center with an AIC official at an interfaith service following the Boston bombings.

There is a wide opening for a group like AIC to compete with CAIR. A 2011 poll found that only 12% of Muslim-American males and 11% of females picked CAIR as the organization that most represents their interests. As I wrote after the poll was published, “only 24 percent of Muslim-American men and 19 percent of Muslim-American women feel represented” by the Muslim Brotherhood legacy groups altogether.

The AIC has offices in Washington D.C., Boston, Egypt, Iraq and Tunisia. According to Guidestar, its 2010 revenue was $1,434,830. This is dwarfed by CAIR’s reported revenue of $4,748,618 for 2011 (and that’s just for its national headquarters and not its allies or individual chapters), but it shows why it fears AIC’s ascent since its founding in 2002: It’s become a force to be reckoned with.

Read more at The Clarion Project

Depictions of 9/11 Now an Islamophobic Hate Crime in New Jersey

Posted on by
6

timecover-263x350By :

The Muslim Student Association is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. All three leaders of Al Qaeda were members of the Muslim Brotherhood… including Osama bin Laden. The MSA has been involved in funding terrorists and a large number of MSA presidents have gone on to join Al Qaeda.

But what is additionally troubling about this story is that the mere depiction of September 11 is now considered a hate crime.

Montclair State University is investigating a bias incident in which someone drew a picture of planes hitting the World Trade Center on the door of a Muslim student group’s headquarters, campus officials said today.

The graffiti was found Monday outside the Office of the Muslim Student Association in the student center, said Suzanne Bronski, a campus spokeswoman.

“The university police immediately launched a full investigation, which is continuing, and the university’s Bias Response Team was appropriately alerted and has been involved,” university officials said in a statement.

Graffiti is straightforward vandalism and campus police rarely investigate the things that students scrawl on walls and doors. They were common in my time and I suspect they are even more common today. There’s no mention of whether this was done with paint or a marker, but I suspect it was the latter, which means it’s easy enough to clean off.

Is scrawling a depiction of 9/11 on the door of a Muslim organization linked to that terrorist attack by way of its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda a hate crime?

Is it Muslims in general that are being targeted or the MSA, an organization with a long history of supporting extremist hate and terrorism?

The Montclair MSA appears to fundraise for Islamic Relief. Islamic Relief was founded by Hany El Banna who talks about being inspired by Sayyid Qutb and other Islamists and his charity has been accused of having terrorist links. And it may have even received money from Osama bin Laden.

The Montclair MSA has invited in Sheik Qatanani to speak to students. The Sheik is both a member of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. It invited Lauren Booth, who is an open supporter of Hamas and the Brotherhood.

But let’s get past the Montclair MSA’s willingness to host terrorist group members and supporters and get to the point.

The MSA has always argued that its attacks on Israel are political and protected by free speech. So when the MSA depicts Israel as a Nazi state and terrorists as heroes, it is practicing free speech. The MSA in conjunction with SJP has picketed Holocaust memorials while screaming hate. But that’s not a bias incident. That’s free speech.

So why is a picture of the worst Muslim atrocity in American history a bias incident?

If the MSA has the right to desecrate the Holocaust without it being a bias incident, if it has the right to accuse Jewish students of being Nazis, why is accusing the MSA of being linked to terrorism a hate crime?

Especially when it’s true.

Front Page

The Sanity of ‘Islamophobia’

Posted on by
2

Islamophobia is bogusby Edward Cline

November was “Islamophobia Awareness” Month. Pat Condell, the indomitable  critic of all things mystical and murky, especially of that paragon of tolerance  and peaceful coexistence, has recommended that the West designate December as  “Hatred and Violence in the Koran” month.

 

In a Gatestone article on the ubiquity of blasphemy laws in Europe, Soeren  Kern, in “Muslims  Pressing for Blasphemy Laws in Europe” (November 30th), cites the continued  campaign of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to enact stricter laws  that would prohibit and punish any speech that “defamed” religion or  religious beliefs -particularly, and most importantly to the OIC, anything  Islamic.

The OIC, a bloc of 57 Muslim countries, is pressuring Western countries into  making it an international crime to criticize Islam or Mohammed – all on  [sic] the name of “religious tolerance.”

Criticism, of course, can include all forms of speech that call into  question the foundations, legitimacy, irrationality, or fraudulency of Islam,  from cartoons that mock Mohammad to amateurish videos (“Innocence of Muslims“) to  scholarly disquisitions. The OIC’s disingenuous promotion of “religious  tolerance” makes as much sense as if Stalin and Hitler had promoted “political  tolerance” in the nations they had overrun. “Tolerance” in this context implies  that a tolerable thing is not life- or value-threatening.

But Islam has demonstrated repeatedly over fourteen centuries that it is not tolerant of other religions – because those other religions have  threatened its political power. Other religions that compete for men’s minds,  time and money are, to Islam, intolerable. Islam, all the guff about  “interfaith dialogue” to the contrary notwithstanding, is the “one, true”  religion. Wherever it has gone, wherever it has planted settlers or immigrants  or fifth columnists, Islam must, by its totalitarian nature, become supreme and  all-encompassing. We see this happening in Europe. All other beliefs, all other  creeds, must defer to it, by hook, crook, or scimitar. All must “submit,” which  is the literal meaning of the term Islam.

Whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood,  an Islamic organization that promotes the goal of a global caliphate (with a  little help from President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton),  introduced the term Islamophobia to describe any and all criticism of  Islam, is moot here (see Robert Spencer‘s  excellent column on this subject).  Anyone branded by Islamic spokesmen or by the Mainstream Media as Islamophobicor an Islamophobe, is someone who genuinely fears  Islam and sees it as a threat to his life or his values. This fear is claimed to  emanate from madness or bigotry or racial prejudice. Islam, however, and  regardless of the “race” of its followers, is a system of theocratic  totalitarianism. One can be as “phobic” about it as one would be about Nazism or  Communism, for the same reasons.

There is no reconciliation or “middle ground” possible between the two intolerants. One or the other must submit. Islam says so. But Western  champions of freedom have yet to say it.

I’m sure that space limitations governed Kern’s catalogue of blasphemy,  defamation, and anti-freedom of speech laws, together with instances of their  enforcement on hapless citizens of various countries. Aside from the Dutch  Parliament’s repeal of its blasphemy law, one very minor recanting of voluntary  self-censorship was recently published by the Associated  Press, which has excised the terms “Islamophobia,” “Homophobia,” and “Ethnic  Cleansing” from its Style Guide, and gives one a very slight twinge of hope that  the MSM is getting a clue. The first two terms it claimed (with justification)  reflect a mental disorder and an “irrational fear,” and suggest politically  incorrect thought, punishable by law if some action is associated with it.

The Associated Press has nixed “homophobia,” “ethnic cleansing,” and a number  of other terms from its Style Book in recent months.

The online Style Book now says that “-phobia,” “an irrational, uncontrollable  fear, often a form of mental illness” should not be used “in political or social  contexts,” including “homophobia” and “Islamophobia.” It also calls “ethnic  cleansing” a “euphemism,” and says the AP “does not use ‘ethnic cleansing’ on  its own. It must be enclosed in quotes, attributed and explained.”

“Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism for pretty violent activities, a phobia is a  psychiatric or medical term for a severe mental disorder. Those terms have been  used quite a bit in the past, and we don’t feel that’s quite accurate,” AP  Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn told POLITICO.

The third term is actually a legitimate one, for that is precisely what  describes a number of campaigns in remote and recent history. (See the conflicts  in Rwanda, Nigeria, and other African nations; the Armenian Holocaust, initiated  by the Turks; and etc.). The question remains, however, of how to properly  define “ethnic cleansing” or genocide. Does Judaism mean a “race” or a  “religion”? Are those concepts inseparably linked, or not? Does the term “Islam”  denote a race, or a religion? Does Christianity? I do not think there are enough  “cross conversions” of individuals from one religion to another, by members of  numerous ”racial” groups, that would validate the AP’s decision to remove  “ethnic cleansing” from its style guide.

After all, if one is a Semite, one is not necessarily Jewish; one could just  as well be a Muslim, or an atheist, or a Christian, or a Buddhist. “Semites” are  men and so are imbued with the attribute of a volitional consciousness. But  Hitler’s concept of Judaism was founded on the faulty premise of determinism: if  one is Jewish, one is necessarily, intrinsicallyof a particular “race.”  Jews can’t help being what they are. “Race” is linked to the religion; it is in  a Jew’s genes (or his “blood”) to be “Jewish” and adhere to a particular creed.  Appended to this horrendous fallacy was the Nazi assertion that to be Jewish is  also to be a corrupting and destructive influence and the bane of all moral  men.

The obverse of this policy was that Aryans were intrinsically “superior”  physically and mentally but polluted with the “blood” of inferior races. This  was just as much a myth as Hitler’s Jewish race one, because all during the  abbreviated “Thousand Year Reich,” it glossed over the historic fact that what  is now modern Germany was a kind of Grand Central Station for several thousand  years as waves of other races passed through it on tides of conquest and  immigration from the four corners of Europe and even from Asia in the form of  the Mongols and Huns.

This was Hitler’s own irrational “phobia”; it justified in his own mind a  campaign of “ethnic cleansing,” which was the Holocaust. But even there, Hitler  wasn’t consistent. He sent to extermination camps Jews of various nationalities,  from Germany, Poland, France, Norway, and so on. Which was the deciding factor  in those expulsions to the death camps: the victims’ nationality, their  religion, or their race? So, the argument could be made that “ethnic cleansing”  is not necessarily synonymous with “religious” or “ideological” or even “racial”  cleansing, but that equivocation seems to be the rule of thumb today. Why should  we or the AP accept Hitler’s or Islam’s (or Hamas’s) murky, undefined notion of  “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide”? The concept’s definition needs to be  refined.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Edward Cline is the author of the Sparrowhawk novels set in  England  and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period, of several detective and  suspense  novels, and three collections of his commentaries and columns, all  available on  Amazon Books. His essays, book reviews, and other articles have  appeared in The  Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Information Ethics and other  publications.  He is a frequent contributor to Rule of Reason, Family Security  Matters,  Capitalism Magazine and other Web publications. 

Worst Anti-Muslim Hate Crime in America was Committed by Muslim

Posted on by
2

By Daniel Greenfield at Front Page

When Shaima Alawadi was found beaten to death in her own dining room with a tire iron, CAIR and countless Muslim organizations rejoiced, and not just for the usual reason that Muslims rejoice when a woman is murdered, but because they had their own living dead proof that Islamophobia was the biggest problem in America since German Measles.

A note lying on the floor read, “Go back to your country, you terrorist;” which clearly meant that Shaima Alawadi’s murder was a hate crime, probably by someone who spent a lot of time reading Robert Spencer, joining militias and working on a Kibbutz.

There was talk of organizing a One Million Hijabs for Shaima Alawadi march, which in Saudi Arabia is just known as another Wednesday. Muslims and useful idiots began uploading photos of themselves in Hijabs with signs reading “I Am Shaima”.  A Sojourners blog used the murder to compare Islamophobia to the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide.

The truth about the murder of Shaima Alawadi was that she wasn’t murdered by someone who hated Islam, but by a Muslim, in keeping with the teachings of Islam which permit husbands to beat their wives.  Shaima Alawadi was indeed murdered because of her Hijab, not because of prejudice against her Hijab, but because of the misogynistic culture that the Hijab represents.

Like so many Muslim women, Shaima Alawadi was murdered in an honor killing by her husband. Like so many Muslim women, she was forced into an arranged marriage at a young age, 15, and lived an unhappy life. Like so many Muslim women, she perpetuated the generational oppression of women, passing on the same misery to her unhappy daughters. And like so many Muslim women, when her desire for freedom conflicted with the Islamic patriarchy, she was murdered for it.

According to court documents revealed in the New York Times, Alawadi’s eldest daughter, Fatima, was found in a car with a 21-year-old man. After her mother picked her up, Fatima said “I love you, Mom” and jumped out of the car going 35 m.p.h., sustaining injuries. While recovering in the hospital, Fatima told authorities that she was being forced to marry a cousin in Iraq — not the man with whom she’d been in the car. Alhimidi, Alawadi’s husband, is in Iraq with his two eldest children (Fatima and her brother) for her funeral. They are expected to return the U.S. later this month.

This is the true hate crime here. Not American hatred of Muslims, but Muslim hatred of women and Muslim women participating in the oppression of other Muslim women until the dam breaks.

There ought to be a one million march of Hijabs for Shamia Alhimidi, empty Hijabs commemorating the Muslim women murdered by their husbands and their brothers, those who committed suicide, jumping out of cars, drinking acid or hanging themselves.

And it’s time for us to wake up to the meaning of the Hijab and the Koran.

One final note

Alzaidy told the newspaper her father and Alawadi’s husband had previously worked together in San Diego as private contractors for the U.S. Army, serving as cultural advisers to train soldiers who were going to be deployed to the Middle East.

A Muslim man who beat his wife to death with a tire iron and then tried to blame the crime on Americans is who we were using as a cultural adviser. And it makes sense. Because that is the culture of the Muslim world.

Related articles

The Threat Doctrine that Cries ‘Blasphemy’

Posted on by
5

By Janet Levy:

For the past 25 years, the Muslim Brotherhood in North America has been pursuing a comprehensive strategy to control what non-Muslims know about Islam.  This multi-pronged threat doctrine seeks to prohibit open discussion and to abridge free speech.  It also seeks to curtail education and training given to the military, law enforcement, intelligence, and government about the true nature of Islam.  Overall, the Brotherhood’s agenda seeks to block a fair and critical appraisal of Islamic doctrine, pursue a stealth civilizational jihad against the West, and, ultimately, render us impotent to defend ourselves.

A review of the Brotherhood’s progress in this effort over the past two decades presents a chilling picture of the extent to which our safety and way of life have been compromised.  It serves as a wake-up call for action now.

Background

The General Strategic Plan for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America, written and adopted in 1987, established the grand mission for Muslims as a mandatory civilizational jihad against the West, led and directed by the Brotherhood.  The stated goal was to establish Islam as “victorious over all other religions.”  Specific steps were laid out in the document to bring about a global Islamic state under sharia, or Islamic doctrine.

The Brotherhood’s strategic plan is buttressed by the Islamic doctrine of al wala wa al bara, which requires Muslims to feel enmity toward non-Muslims (upheld by taqiyya, or deception) and exhibit loyalty to the umma, or the Muslim community.  It embodies the stealth principles of Sun Tzu’s ancient Chinese war doctrine: “[s]ubduing an enemy without force is best” and “[a]ll warfare is based on deception.”

Stopping military and government training

To control what is known about Islam and to block education and training to law enforcement and government, the Muslim Brotherhood has developed well-placed inside-influence operators who wield considerable power with high-level officials and can set policy.

For example, in 2008, Stephen Coughlin, a lawyer and top expert on Islamic doctrine, was cashiered as a government contractor for the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon.  Coughlin had lectured at the Navy War College and the Marine Corp War College, as well as briefed members of Congress, senior staff at the Department of Defense, government officials, and law enforcement and intelligence officers.  His departure was an orchestrated campaign undertaken by an Egyptian-American Muslim, Hesham Islam, who, after 20 years in the U.S. Navy, had become a senior adviser and admired confidant to then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England.

Islam was welcomed into England’s inner circle despite his close ties to the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood front group and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas terrorist funding trial.  Islam regularly attended ISNA events and hosted the organization at the Pentagon.  From his position as a well-placed insider, Islam was able to use his relationship with the deputy secretary to label Coughlin “extreme” and “a Christian zealot with a poison pen,” even though the veracity and scholarship of Coughlin’s lectures were deemed impeccable throughout his chain of command.  Eventually, Islam succeeded in having Coughlin removed, effectively silencing him and removing the benefit of Coughlin’s expertise for military personnel.

A more recent instance of blocking military and government officials from learning the truth about Islamic doctrine was the removal from training responsibilities of Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley from the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, VA.  Although Dooley’s course materials on radical Islam had been previously approved, they were recast as “offensive to Muslims” and critical of Islam after complaints came to the White House from various Islamic influence groups.

The complaining groups included two unindicted co-conspirators in the Hamas funding trial — ISNA, again, and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  Dooley was publicly excoriated, fired as an instructor, and given a negative evaluation, placing the future of his military career in jeopardy.  Finally, all materials critical of Islam were scrubbed from military training, even though much of the training materials referenced Islamic texts themselves,  as well as commentary from highly esteemed Muslim clerics.

In this way, for lack of adequate training and education, our military officers and other government employees are ultimately rendered impotent to fight the enemy, unaware of the threat to national security posed by Islam.

Invoking “Islamophobia” and “Blasphemy”

Another key tactic cited in the Brotherhood’s strategic plan is to prevent infidels from learning the truth about Islam by controlling how Islamic doctrine is discussed and the language used to describe Islam and Muslims.  This method is effectively aided by the West’s culture of multiculturalism, in which charges of prejudice and racism — like “Islamophobia” — trump all offenses.

The all too convenient charge of “Islamophobia” has been proclaimed when non-Muslims have critically evaluated the tenets of Islam, denounced terrorist activities, called attention to inappropriate or threatening behavior, denied requests for accommodations beyond what is customary and normal, depicted Mohammed in unflattering ways, or even quoted directly from Islamic scriptures.  This dissembling or disingenuous focus on “Islamophobia,” when none exists in the U.S. (according to an FBI study on religious hate crimes), obfuscates the real danger of jihad and Islamic supremacism.  It lulls the general populace and renders it helpless to defend itself against the real Islamic threat.

A parallel move, used when actual Islamic terrorist actions have been taken, is to shift the blame for those actions onto non-Muslims.  Thus, those who have expressed negative views of Islam and Muslims and who have cast suspicions about Muslims’ activities are deemed culpable for Islamic terrorism.  Further, Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA issue veiled threats that the targeting and misrepresentation of Muslims will lead to distrust within Muslim communities and foster an unwillingness to cooperate with authorities to strengthen homeland security.

A related diversionary tactic is to blame jihadist acts on social or economic problems such as poverty, lack of opportunity, and bias against Muslims.  In effect, the argument goes, Islamic terrorism is being manufactured by Islamophobia or poverty and has nothing to do with Islam.  The West is blamed for its insensitivity to Islam, and the need for formalized measures or legislation is advanced to ensure that infidels aren’t harmed further by violent reactions when Muslims legitimately feel disrespected.  Legislation such as the Istanbul Process, the collection of anti-blasphemy laws passed by the U.N., is presented as a necessary option under the guise of condemning insults to religion in general.  Yet the real intent is to eliminate any criticism of Islam, as is made obvious by the regular and public condemnation of Christians and Jews by Muslims who populate the internet with videos calling for jihad against infidels.

Advancing false theories

Another arrow in the quiver of Muslim tactics is to seize control of the education of military and government employees about Islamic doctrine.  Muslim Brotherhood organizations do this by arguing that non-Muslims are unequipped to teach Islam and that it must properly be taught by Muslims.  As a result, CAIR has provided Muslim sensitivity training for the FBI, U.S. Armed Forces, state and local law enforcement agencies, and others, all of it under the guise of fostering a “better relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim community.”  Yet at the same time, the Brotherhood’s New York chapter distributed posters declaring, “Build a Wall of Resistance, Don’t Talk to the F.B.I.” and advised Muslims that they are the victims of anti-Muslim bias.

Incredibly, Muslim Brotherhood operatives, such as Louay Safi, have even taught the tenets of Islam to American troops deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, including a course on the “Theology of Islam” at Fort Hood in Texas.  Following Major Nidal Hasan’s 2009 attack on Fort Hood in which he murdered 13 people, Safi blamed the violent outburst on the “demonization of marginalized groups,” meaning Muslims.

Another Muslim Brotherhood operative, Mohammed Magid, president of ISNA, was appointed in 2011 by Obama to serve at the Department of Homeland Security.  His responsibilities have included the training and advising of personnel affiliated with the FBI and other government agencies.  Magid has characterized any criticism of Islam as “religious bigotry and hate” and been responsible for purging government-training materials critical of Islam.

Read more at American Thinker

Dems Tap Radical Islamists for Cash

Posted on by
5

by Steve Emerson and John Rossamando:

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has learned that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi headlined a Democratic Party fundraiser with leaders of Hamasand Muslim Brotherhood front groups in May of this year.

The invitation-only fundraiser was sponsored by Reps. Keith Ellison, D-Minn.; Andre Carson, D-Ind.; and Steve Israel, D-N.Y., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and took place on the evening of May 16, 2012, at the W Hotel in Washington D.C.

In attendance were about 20 members of a Syrian dissident group and 10 officials representing Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas front groups. Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Executive Director Nihad Awad was perhaps the most prominent attendee and played a key role in organizing the event.

CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation Hamas money-laundering trials, was described in FBI testimony as having been created by Hamas. In a 2007 federal court filing, prosecutors described CAIR as conspiring with other branches of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists.

The FBI officially severed relations with CAIR in 2008 because of its ties to Hamas.

Awad has openly championed Hamas and defended suicide bombings as “legitimate resistance.”

Also in attendance was Jamal Barzinji, a founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and co-founder of the Muslim Students Association (MSA), an incubator for Islamic radicalism in North America. MSA was the forerunner of Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT).

Barzinji was named in a federal affidavit as being closely associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas. His name appears in a global phone book of Muslim Brotherhood members recovered by Italian and Swiss authorities in Nov. 2001 from the home of Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano founder Youssef Nada, one of the leaders of the international Muslim Brotherhood.

During the fundraiser, Pelosi sat at the same table with Awad and Barzinji.

Speaking to the attendees in her 10-minute address, she said the Democratic Party should become the natural home of Muslim-Americans, because Republicans fan the flames of “Islamophobia.” She focused exclusively on Islamophobia, a term devised by radical Islamists and their apologists to silence critics, while avoiding any mention of terrorism carried out by Islamists in the United States.

Also speaking were Israel, Ellison, Carson, and Reps Alyson Schwartz, D-Pa., and Chris Murphy, D-Conn. Israel and Murphy were said to have been the most vehement among the members of Congress in attendance in terms of their incendiary accusations of Republican-incited Islamophobia. One observer said that it was striking that “there was not a scintilla of comments in defense of U.S. national security.” However, they welcomed each of the Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood front groups represented at the event into the “Democratic community” without any mention of their well-documented terror links.

Read more at IPT

CAIR Official: Mention of Islamists is ‘Politics of Fear’

Posted on by
1

Dawud Walid prays at a protest against the NYPD’s counter terrorism efforts (Photo: Reuters)

by: Ryan Mauro:

On October 11, the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) posted an articlewhere its Executive Director, Dawud Walid, says that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is engaging in “politics of fear” by talking about the “so-called Islamists.” This statement isn’t just meant to undermine a political campaign. It’s about dismissing the notion that Islamists even exist at all.

The term Islamist (or Islamism) refers to an adherence to “political Islam,” an ideology that deems Islam not only a religion, but the view that Sharia law should be implemented in all spheres of life including government, social, judicial, economic, military and cultural. Adherents envision world domination by the Muslim ummah (the worldwide community of Muslims).

Walid wrote, “And he [Romney] made a statement that so-called Islamists want to wage perpetual war with the West. So it appears that Mr. Romney is engaged in the politics of fear,” Walid said. He stated that Romney “sounds a little hostile” to Muslims.

Walid’s statement conveys two messages: Islamists don’t exist and Muslims should feel threatened by those who say they do.

The word “Islamist” is problematic for Walid and CAIR because if you accept the term, then you accept that Muslims are not a monolith in terms of ideology. This undermines the efforts of CAIR and its Islamist allies to mobilize the ummah, as if it were one political party or nation-state. Suddenly, Muslim-Americans are forced to identify themselves as Islamists or non-Islamists, giving an opening for alternative leadership to arise that can compete with the Brotherhood network.

The denial that Islamists exist is actually an indication that one is an Islamist. This sounds like a self-contradiction, but Islamists view themselves as the only authentic practitioners of Islam. There is only one Islam and it is theirs. To them, “Islamism” is therefore an artificial and meaningless construct.

The Brotherhood affiliates differ in their approaches to the term. Some will use the term “Islamists” but characterize them as non-threatening and “moderate” by comparing them to Al-Qaeda. Others, like Walid, question they even exist in the first place. The objective of either approach is to stop the U.S. from viewing the Islamist ideology as the problem, as opposed to just Al-Qaeda-type jihadists. Once Islamism becomes the problem, then CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates are seen as part of the problem. Right now, they are seen as part of the solution, the bridge-builders that the U.S. government must court.

The double-standard of Walid’s attack on Romney is breathtaking. America is one of the only countries (perhaps the only) where using the term “Islamists” is highly controversial and seen as an attack on all of Islam and its adherents. In the Middle East, the least tolerant region on earth, “Islamist” regularly appears in the press and Islamists often identify themselves that way. Almost everyone accepts that criticism of Islamists is not a criticism of all Muslims, especially because it is often Muslims who are making the criticisms.

Read more at Radical Islam

6 Sure Signs Someone You Know is an Islamophobe – And What you can DO about it!

Posted on by
4

by Eric Allen Bell:

The word “Islamophobia” was popularized by Hamas, an Islamic terrorist organization, operating under several different names in America – most effectively as the Council on American Islamic Relations.  Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of, not only Hamas, but Al Qaeda and countless other Islamic terrorist groups.

The Holy Land Foundation trial was the result of the largest bust in FBI history, of an Islamic “charity”.  This organization was caught funneling about $12 million to Hamas.  These monies were to be used to enable Islamic jihadists to murder innocent civilians in the name of Islam.

During this FBI raid, a memo was unearthed.  This memo has become known as the “Explanatory Memorandum”.  In summary, the Muslim Brotherhood and a couple dozen of its front groups in America, declared a “Civilization Jihad”.  In plain terms, the Muslim Brotherhood stated their intention to destroy the US from within, using our own culture, media, legal system, and academia, law enforcement, you name it.  Unfortunately, most people cannot or will not look at this – and consequently, the plan is moving forward like clockwork.  As author Dr. Bill Warner reminded me recently, “You can wake a man who is sleeping, but you cannot wake a man who is pretending to be asleep”.

Now, as it turns out, not everyone believes in this concept called “Islamophobia”.  In fact, there exists a rapidly growing number of Patriotic Americans who see this form of terrorist spin control for what it is.  But unfortunately, one of the ways that the Muslim Brotherhood / Hamas / CAIR has infiltrated our culture, is by using one of our greatest weaknesses, and that is the fear of not toeing the line when it comes to multiculturalism.  Those who do not drink the Kool Aid are called the “Islamophobes”.

You may already have an “Islamophobe” living in your community, or as a member of your family, an elected official, a member of your religious organization or even someone at work.  The “Islamophobes” are everywhere, and they are spreading.  Here are 6 ways to spot one:

1 – An “Islamophobe” loves Liberty more than they love submission.  They know that the word Liberty literally means “you own you” and that the word Islam literally means “submission”.  And just like America’s Founding Fathers, the “Islamophobe” knows the value of Liberty and knows it comes with a cost – a cost they are willing to pay, even when those around them neither understand nor appreciate this.

2 – An “Islamophobe” is more interested in the truth than the approval of their peers. They place their own moral intuition and the principles of the American Constitution above the group think of the times.  The “Islamophobe” is strong-willed, independent and exemplifies the American spirit.  They are unwilling to compromise the political self-determination, that this great Republic was founded on, including and especially free speech.

3 – An “Islamophobe” resists passionately any attempt to impose Islamic law (Sharia) onto them.  Islamic law mandates the killing of those who leave Islam, the death penalty for homosexuals, a second-class status for women, punishment for the crime of being raped (Islamic law calls this “adultery”), it forbids the questioning of Islamic doctrine, promotes slavery, forbids religious freedom and criminalizes free speech.  Although the “Islamophobes” are often smeared in the press as being irrational, the truth is that most actually realize that the more obvious forms of Sharia Law are not their most immediate concern.  Rather, it is understood among “Islamohobes” that it is “Creeping Sharia” or death by a thousand cuts that Americans have to watch out for and stand against.  The “Islamophobe” is always the first to notice when the political doctrine known as “Islam” is being given special treatment in the schools, the courts and in the media.  The “Islamophobe” is often the first to realize that their own God given right to free speech is being threatened by the slow and stealth implementation of Sharia Law, into all levels of our society.

4 – An “Islamophobe” sees a pattern emerging before the rest of the population sees it, and they don’t hesitate to warn others, even when the social, professional and personal safety consequences come with a hefty price.  As David Horowitz pointed out recently, “80 percent of the American public was opposed to getting involved in WWII before we were attacked at Pearl Harbor”.  What was it that the other 20 percent were able to see?  What was the pattern they were able to identify?  An “Islamophobe” sees the writing on the walls and does not sit around passively waiting for our so-called “leaders” to get it.  An “Islamophobe” is very likely already a member of organizations such as “Act for America” because they are already taking action at the grass roots level.

5 – An “Islamophobe” is able to tell the difference between Islam, the totalitarian political ideology, and Muslims – who are human beings.  “Islamophobes” are not concerned with how Muslims worship.  Rather, it is Islamic Law that concerns them, specifically as it pertains to the treatment of the infidel, who is to be subjugated or killed.  Contrary to popuar opinion, “Islamophobes” do not hate Muslims.  In fact the “Islamophobes” know better than most, that no one is more victimized by the brutality of Islam than Muslims.  “Islamophobes” look for ways to stop this pattern, so that all people can be free, have dignity and human rights.  An “Islamophobe” is often somebody with a big heart, such that they tend to care about people whom they don’t even personally know. The “Islamophobes” however do oppose a violent ideology which seeks to subjugate or kill the unbeliever, and they make no apologies for not tolerating such inhumanity.  Ironically, “Islamophobes” are often branded as bigots for simply being the ones willing to acknowledge the elephant in the room.  And making sure they are branded as such, is the job of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Hamas front group.

6 – An “Islamophobe” tends to define themselves by what they are for – and not by what they are against.  An “Islamophobe” stands for liberty, stands for human rights and cares about our national defense.  They are less concerned about complaining about the problems and are more likely to actually do something about it.  “Islamophobes” are people of action.  “Islamophobes” take the time to read the Islamic scriptures (Koran, Hadith and Sira) and to understand what we are up against.  They study the works of Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Sam Harris, Nonie Darwish, Bill Warner, Brigitte Gabriel and so many others.  An “Islamophobe” takes the time to understand the ruthless and barbaric Islamic Law (Shaira), which is committed to taking away our fundamental rights.  Consequently, many “Islamophobes” have the tools to speak to others, including their elected officials, spiritual leaders, friends and family and even the media, to affect positive social change – and preserve our American way of life.

Do you know someone who might exhibit these traits?  Is someone you know an “Islamophobe”?  Well now there is something you can do about it.  Join them!

If you love Liberty more than the approval of your peers – you may already be an “Islamophobe”.

Read more at Global Infidel TV

Eric Allen Bell is a filmmaker who was banned from blogging at the “Daily Kos” in the beginning of 2012 because he wrote three articles that ran afoul of the mindset there, specifically naming “Loonwatch.com” as a “terrorist spin control network.” He has told his story in his article, The High Price for Telling the Truth About Islam. Visit his Facebook page: http://www.Facebook.com/EricAllenBell or at www.EricAllenBell.com

See also: Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future

 

“Islamophobia” is a Sacralized Islamic Objective

Posted on by
3

The Muslim Brotherhood’s unabashed emblem of terror, meant to instill “Islamophobia”

By Andrew Bostom:

Fjordman reminds us today how the great contemporary Dutch scholar of Islam  Hans Jansen, has observed that the Koran, for example 8:60, the verse alluded to in the Muslim Brotherhood emblem,

…actually commands Muslims to instill fear of Islam “Islamophobia” into the hearts of non-Muslims, using any means necessary to force them to submit to Islam’s might.

Koran 8:60 states,

“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know.”

This motif—instilling terror in non-Muslims—is repeated in verses such as 3:151 and 8:12:

3:151 “We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.”

8:12 “(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, ‘Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.’”

Muhammad reiterates this directive in the most important canonical hadith collection (Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220), stating, “I have been made victorious with terror.”

Furthermore, according to the earliest and most authoritative pious Muslim biography (or “sira’) of Muhammad,  Ibn Ishaq’s “The Life of Muhammad,” Islam’s prophet ordered the killing of the poet Kaab b. al-Ashraf, for writing “offensive” poetry:

…the Apostle of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—said, “Who will take care of Ibn al-Ashraf for me?”“I shall,” answered Muhammad b. Maslama, the brother of the Banū Abd al-Ashhal. “I will kill him.”“Do it then, if you can,” he [Muhammad] said.

After the brutal assassination, which Muhammad commissioned, Ibn Ishaq quotes this approving observation from the Muslim assassin:

The Jews were terrified by our attack upon Allahs enemy. And there was not a Jew there who did not fear for his life.

The Koran, hadith, and sira—Islam’s most important foundational sources—thus mandate Islamophobia to be inculcated amongst non-Muslims as a “sacralized” objective.

Why?

Ibn Hudayl a 14th century Granadan author of an important treatise on jihad, elucidated the allowable tactics which facilitated the violent, chaotic jihad conquest of the Iberian peninsula, and other parts of Europe:

It is permissible to set fire to the lands of the enemy, his stores of grain, his beasts of burden – if it is not possible for the Muslims to take possession of them – as well as to cut down his trees, to raze his cities, in a word, to do everything that might ruin and discourage him…[being] suited to hastening the Islamization of that enemy or to weakening him.  Indeed, all this contributes to a military triumph over him or to forcing him to capitulate.

And these repeated attacks, indistinguishable in motivation from modern acts of jihad terrorism, like the horrific 9/11/01 attacks in New York and Washington, DC, and the Madrid bombings on 3/11/04, or those in London on 7/7/05, were in fact designed to sow terror. The 17th century Muslim historian al-Maqqari explained that the panic created by the Arab horsemen and sailors, at the time of the Muslim expansion in the regions subjected to those raids and landings, facilitated their later conquest,

Allah thus instilled such fear among the infidels that they did not dare to go and fight the conquerors; they only approached them as suppliants, to beg for peace.

**********

Today, this true doctrinal and historical meaning of Islamophobia  has undergone an Orwellian transformation. Our media and political elites, cowering in submission to the cultural jihadist dictates of the mainstream Muslim Brotherhood front groups which dominate institutional American Islam, now claim “Islamophobia” is an unwarranted, even discriminatory fear of Muslims and their creed.

Read more

Profs. on Mideast Turmoil: Blame America, Israel, and Free Speech

Posted on by
1

John Esposito

By Cinnamon Stillwell:

In the wake of the al-Qaeda attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012, the seizure of the American embassy in Cairo, Egypt, and the ensuing anti-American protests and riots throughout the Middle East—the latter ostensibly over an anti-Islam YouTube film trailer that originated in the U.S. months earlier—what do Middle East scholars have to say about the turmoil in the region?

As self-styled supporters of “academic freedom,” are they rushing to defend First Amendment rights instead of kowtowing to Muslim religious sensibilities? Are they denouncing the prospect of self-censorship rather than pushing YouTube to pull the “offending” video by claiming that it constitutes “hate speech?” Are they standing up for religious freedom instead of encouraging Americans to adhere to Sharia law-driven prohibitions on blasphemy? Are they putting aside their anti-Western biases and laying blame where it belongs instead of on America and Israel?

If the following quotes from Middle East studies academics are any indication, the answer to all those questions would be a resounding No!

Let’s take a look at what these “experts” have to say.

On First Amendment rights:

Bruce Lawrence, professor emeritus of religion and member of the Islamic Studies Center’s advisory board, Duke University:

But what about hate speech? Is hate speech not a category that impinges on, and limits, the practice of free speech?

Omid Safi, professor of Islamic studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:

In reality, pieces like the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ [sic] so-called film are best classified as ‘hate speech,’ as they seem to be of the same genre as anti-Semitic films of the 1930’s or Birth of the [sic] Nation KKK movies.

Tariq Ramadan, professor of contemporary Islamic studies, Oxford University:

[B]ehind the celebration of freedom of speech hides the arrogance of ideologists and well-fed racists who feed off the multiform humiliation of Muslims and to demonstrate the clear ‘superiority’ of their civilisation or the validity of their resistance to the ‘cancer’ of retrograde Islam.

John Brown, adjunct professor of liberal studies, Georgetown University:

Every culture or group of cultures has its own red lines. They might be legal red lines, but they are cultural red lines. There are taboos there are things people cannot say in public. In my experience, you just don’t speak badly of the Prophet Muhammad. It just does not happen.

John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown University:

Indeed, it’s important to remember that, for Muslims, Mohammed is the ideal Muslim, as it was. He’s the living Quran. You know, he’s the model, you know. And so to go after him, OK, is to be the ultimate form, you know, the ultimate form of disrespect. It would be the ultimate blasphemy. . . . I think there’s a recognition of the freedom of speech, but you know, you still get into freedom of speech and then what are the consequences of it? . . . And so what you really have is a situation where this belongs to the genre of Islam-aphobia, which is just like [sic] anti-Semitic.

As’ad AbuKhalil, professor of political science, California State University, Stanislaus:

U.S. officials have been really insulting my intelligence all week with talk of the ‘freedom of speech’ that we have here in the U.S. that Muslims don’t understand. . . . They understand that the U.S. government has made it illegal for anyone to express support for Hamas and Hizbullah in the U.S.  Muslim[s] do understand that the U.S. has banned TV channels [Hezbollah’s Al-Manar and Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV] from the U.S. because they deemed them offensive to Israel. . . . We remember that the Bush administration asked all U.S. news media after Sept. 11 to refrain from airing any Bin Laden tapes.

Omid Safi, professor of Islamic studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:

Freedom of speech falls alongside other freedoms to live and be free from bombs falling on people’s heads and to be free from occupations . . . I will take free speech comments seriously when others take people’s freedom of life and dignity and to be free from occupation just as seriously.

On why YouTube should pull the video, “Innocence of Muslims”:

Hatem Bazian, Near Eastern studies senior lecturer, University of California, Berkeley:

Take the ethical high ground and say, ‘yes, I understand that I have the legal right to do it. But ethically, I need to actually say no to it, because it does not represent the best of our values.’ I would say even to put it in the recycling bin would be an insult to the recycling bin.

John Brown, adjunct professor of liberal studies, Georgetown University:

This movie reached new depths . . . I find it difficult that the most insulting thing ever made about the Prophet Muhammad in the history of Western civilization, as far as I know, doesn’t violate usage [Youtube usage] policy.

On blaming America, and Israel, and the West: Stephen Zunes, professor of politics and international studies and director of the Middle East studies program, University of San Francisco:

It is extremely unlikely that such vitriolic anti-American protests would have taken place were it not for decades of U.S. support, during both Republican and Democratic administrations, of allied dictatorships and the Israeli occupation, not to mention the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the ongoing military strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen.

John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown University:

The terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three embassy staff, and the Cairo riots seem similar but share in common the incitement and exploitation of popular outrage among many Muslims, as we have witnessed during the Salman Rushdie and Danish cartoons affairs. They exploit deep seated popular anti-American sentiment, based on decades of resentment over US and European foreign policies in the Middle East.

Juan Cole, Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History, University of Michigan:

The touchiness of Muslims about assaults on the Prophet Muhammad is in part rooted in centuries of Western colonialism and neo-colonialism during which their religion was routinely denounced as barbaric by the people ruling and lording it over them.

Mark LeVine, professor of history, University of California, Irvine:

Muslims in Egypt, Libya and around the world equally look at American actions, from sanctions against and then an invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and sent the country back to the Stone Age, to unflinching support for Israel and all the Arab authoritarian regimes (secular and royal alike) and drone strikes that always seem to kill unintended civilians ‘by mistake,’ and wonder with equal bewilderment how ‘we’ can be so barbaric and uncivilized.

Hamid Dabashi, Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature, Columbia University:

Sam Bacile [the pseudonym for the alleged filmmaker, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula] is integral to a pattern, an Islamophobic streak of racism that runs deep into American culture.

Juan Cole, Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History, University of Michigan:

From the 9/11 attacks to the embassy burnings of this past week, the U.S. pays the price for supporting the subjection of the Palestinians in widespread hatred for it from the Muslim world.

Read more at Front Page