Umar Lee, a convert to Islam from St. Louis, was once enough of an Islamic supremacist to write to a rival: “i could cut your neck with the sword of islam and watch you squeal like a bitch like daniel pearl.” In an email exchange with me, heendorsed the death penalty for apostasy.
But now he has left Islam and returned to Christianity. Watch the video; in it he makes many, many important points about how converts to Islam are lied to, and how Islam establishes an empire of fear.
Note especially this, starting at 4:04:
“We can talk about the grievance industry, CAIR, etc., trying to hype up the threat of Islamophobia. Islamophobia is very minor. You want to talk about religious bias? You convert to Christianity in Saudi Arabia, you’re murdered. You convert from Islam in so many Muslim countries, it’s the death penalty. Why are Muslim societies so afraid of missionaries? Why are Muslim societies so afraid of freedom of speech? Why are Muslim societies so afraid of the Gospel? Why are Muslim societies so afraid of the message of Jesus Christ? If you believe Islam is the truth, why don’t you believe Islam can compete in the marketplace of ideas? Obviously you don’t, or you wouldn’t kill people that convert to Christianity and put missionaries in jail.”
There is something terribly and tragically and importantly symbolic about the Benghazi attack that may be lost in the tidal wave of details about what happened on September 11, 2012, in an incident where four American officials were murdered in a terrorist attack. This point stands at the heart of everything that has happened in American society and intellectual life during the last decade.
And that point is this:
America was attacked once again on September 11, attacked by al-Qaeda in an attempt to destroy the United States — as ridiculous as that goal might seem. Yet: the U.S. government blamed the attack on America itself.
Other reasons can be adduced for the official position that what happened that day was due to a video insulting Islam rather than a terrorist attack, but this is the factor of overwhelming importance. It transformed the situation in the following ways:
– Muslims were the victims of American misbehavior, a point emerging from the administration’s wider worldview of U.S. aggression and Third World suffering, as in the lectures of all those left-wing anti-American academics and the sermons of Jeremiah Wright.
– “Hate speech” and racism (as “Islamophobia” is often reconfigured) were the cause of troubles.
– While freedom of speech and such liberties should be defended, they must be limited in some ways to prevent further trouble.
– America’s proper posture should be one of apology, as in the advertisements that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made for the Pakistani and other media.
– The “misblaming,” to coin a word, of the video showed terrorist groups that not only can they attack Americans, but they can do so without fear of punishment … or even of blame! As the House of Representatives’ hearings show, the misattribution of responsibility also delayed the FBI’s investigation, perhaps conclusively so.
– The exercise of American power has been the cause of America’s problems, not an excess of appeasement. The chickens — in Wright’s phrase — are merely coming home to roost. Yet once the video was blamed — the video which few in the Middle East were aware of — there were in fact further anti-American riots in different countries, now over the video which Clinton and others made known, in which dozens of people died. This showed that appeasement and apology caused worse problems.
– The solution to these Middle East conflicts required a change in U.S. policies in order to avoid further offense. This meant distancing from Israel and even historic Arab allies, showing respect and encouragement even for “moderate” Islamist movements, and other measures.
In short, this is the stance of blaming America and exonerating its enemies that has seized hold of the national consciousness. Of course, parallel responses met the Boston bombing, as the mass media and academics scrambled to give alternative explanations to the terrorists’ motives.
The truth is, however, extremely simple: the United States faces a revolutionary Islamist movement that will neither go away nor moderate itself.
To understand this movement and its ideology, how it is and is not rooted in Islam, its weaknesses and divisions, the forces willing to help combat it, and the ways to devise strategies to battle it is the prime international need for the moment. It is as necessary to do these things for revolutionary Islamism today as it was to do the same things regarding Nazism in the 1930s and 1940s and for communism in the 1940s and 1950s.
Yet the U.S. armed forces and other institutions are forbidden from holding this inquiry.
On Friday’s Real Time program on HBO, Bill Maher hosted an interview with Brian Levin, the director of the Center for Study of Hate and Extremism. It became clear within thirty seconds that Levin was not attending the religious parity party he had expected.
One can understand why Levin might harbor such expectations. Maher has a pretty apparent disdain for religious adherents of all stripes. But in that first thirty seconds, Maher spoke, with a pointedly singular focus, of the hypocrisy we witness in such fanatical terrorists as the Tsarnaev brothers, who bombed the Boston Marathon last week. “If you read what the older brother wrote on his, uh, on the internet,” Maher began, “it says his worldview: Islam. Personal priorities: career and money. And we see a lot of this; I mean, the 9/11 hijackers went to strip clubs the night before they got on the plane.”
Two references to notorious acts of Islamic terrorism were enough for Levin. He interjected by saying that “it’s not like people who are Muslims who do wacky things have a monopoly on it. We have hypocrites across faiths, Jewish, Christian, who say they’re out for God and end up doing not-so-nice things.”
Before he could even finish this rather boilerplate attempt to draw religious equivalency between the “not-so-nice things” religious people do and acts of murder and terror sanctified by Islamic groups, Maher had written him off, replying, “You know what, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s liberal b——- right there.”
Levin, seemingly blindsided, appealed to the fact that Maher’s pointing out hypocrisy in all religion is how he makes his living, but Maher refused to relent.
There’s only one faith that kills you, or wants to kill you, if you draw a bad cartoon of the prophet. There’s only one faith that kills you, or wants to kill you, if you renounce the faith. An ex-Muslim is a very dangerous thing. Talk to Salman Rushdie after the show about Christian versus Islam. So I’m just saying, let’s keep it real.
This is the moment where Levin’s agenda was exposed, and anti-jihadists like Pamela Geller were thoroughly vindicated, even if not explicitly. “Well,” Levin dawdled, “I guess I have a girl for you, Pam Geller, you could maybe meet,” in an attempt to be funny. Maher, confusedly turning to the audience, replied, “Uh, I don’t know what that means.”
“Well, she’s an Islamophobe,” Levin said. There it is. To those in the in the audience who were paying attention, it became pretty apparent that when presented with these uncomfortable facts by someone who cannot readily be denounced as a hateful Islamophobe, the Islamic apologist can do nothing more than reach into his Islamophobia rolodex for an example to get his point across. And in this case, that example is a figure who is possibly obscure to Maher, and entirely abstract to the conversation.
If Maher could have readily recalled exactly who Pamela Geller is and reference her work, he would likely have explained to Levin that juxtaposing Islamists who would bless the murder of apostates with Pamela Geller, who has never advocated that her readers commit murder, is a silly, slanderous thing to do. But though Maher didn’t specifically discuss Geller here, he did vindicate her in terms of the anti-jihad message she works to disseminate. And here’s why.
Much of what leaves Bill Maher’s mouth after this point encapsulates Geller’s message in such a way that it will be understood by an audience that might otherwise write it off if a figure like Geller had said it. To the progressive audience members who know who Geller is, or maybe have watched the many propaganda charades disguised as documentaries against her, Geller has the letter I branded on her — so her words would likely be immediately dismissed as hate.
So Maher gets to say what Geller does and would say, without having Levin immediately dismiss the truth as Islamophobia, which follows:
I am not an Islamophobe, that’s wrong. I am a truth lover. [Approving applause] All religions are not alike. As many people have pointed out, The Book of Mormon, did you see the show? [Levin says no, as he's unable to get tickets.] Okay. Can you imagine if they did The Book of Islam? [Pause.] Could they do that? There is only one religion that threatens violence and carries it out for things like that. Could they do The Book of Islam on Broadway?
Levin replied with an unconvincing “Possibly so,” looking to quickly change the subject. But before he could, Maher sardonically demanded, “Tell me what color the sky is in your world.”
Standing against Islamist groups with Muslim Brotherhood origins and believing the content of the Brotherhood’s own documents and speeches apparently makes qualifies you as an “Islamophobe.”
The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence (ICSR) has published a report that brands “Europe’s Counter-Jihad Movement” as a threat. The document, much like the studies of the so-called “Islamophobia Network” in America, treats valid concerns about Islamists as evidence of extremism.
According to the Gates of Vienna blog, the ICSR is affiliated with “the Swedish Ministry of Defence, the current U.S. secretary of defense, several American universities, Saudi sheikhs and a think tank in Jordan.” It is also affiliated with the Interdisciplinary Center Herzilya in Israel and Georgetown University, home of the Saudi-funded Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. Its founding director isJohn Esposito, one of the top allies of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network.
The executive summary of the report says the “European Counter-Jihad Movement” is a “form of far-right extremism in its portrayal of Muslims as a threat to European culture, an ‘enemy within,’ and in its proposed, highly illiberal responses to this perceived responses to this perceived threat.”
Conservatives Must Stop Using the Terms ‘Radical Islam and Radical Muslims’
Dave Gaubatz
During my counter-terrorism work I have the great opportunity to speak with Americans who understand Islam and are trying to educate others about the dangers Islam and Sharia create for our beautiful country. There are organizations such as ACT For America and FrontPage Magazine that are doing outstanding work. There are Americans who belong to no organization and they are doing outstanding work. I respect all who are educating Americans.
There is one major error many organizations and well intended people make when discussing Islamic issues. There is hardly a day goes by that I don’t speak with someone who uses the terms ‘Radical Islam and Radical Muslims’. Using these terms causes great harm to our country and the movement by conservatives to show the dangers of Islam. I ask many of the people who use these terms if they believe the Islamic ideology itself is dangerous. Most agree that Islam and Sharia are very dangerous and America’s number one security threat. At the same time some of these people commonly use ‘Radical Islam and Radical Muslims’ in their writings and lectures to the American public. If you truly believe the Islamic ideology is dangerous and harmful to our country and children, you must at once cease from using these terms.
Let me explain why. If you say ‘Radical Islam and Radical Muslims’ then you are saying that in reality Islam is peaceful, a good religion, and has its place in American society. You are saying that Islam has been ‘hijacked’ by a few ‘Radical Muslims’ and the Radical Muslims’ are misinterpreting the Islamic ideology that was founded by Prophet Mohammed. Most of us know that the pure and simple Islam is dangerous and we want no part of it to be in America, and we don’t want our children to be led by liberal politicians, journalists, and naive Americans to believe Islam is a good thing for our country. Islam is not good for our country. Islam has been violent and dangerous for over 1400 years and it will always be dangerous. The people you refer to as ‘Radical Muslims’ are not radical. They are simply carrying out the ‘true Islamic ideology as Prophet Mohammed wanted it to be carried out. These people are ‘Pure Muslims’. They are Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbolla, and the numerous other Islamic acronyms. The leaders of such organizations as MSA, ISNA, MANA, and CAIR are Muslim Brotherhood organizations who are practicing the true form of Islam. They are not ‘Radical’, they are ‘Pure Muslims’. These organizations want all Muslims to think and behave as they do. They want all Muslims to practice ‘Pure Islam’.
Many well intended Americans also use the term ‘Moderate Muslims’. In reality a ‘Moderate Muslim’ does not uphold the violent aspects of Sharia law. In accordance to the Islamic ideology these people are Apostates of Islam. You can’t separate one aspect of Sharia from another and be a ‘Pure Muslim’. Even Islamic leaders say exactly what I described above. If you were to attend lectures at Dar Al Hijra Mosque in Fairfax, Va., you would be informed by the Islamic leaders that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. One is actually adhering to all aspects of Sharia law and therefor a ‘Pure Muslim’ or they aren’t and are Apostates of Islam. In accordance with Sharia law the penalty for Apostasy is death.
To sum it up: Immediately stop using the terms ‘Radical Islam and Radical Muslims’. Stop legitimizing the Islamic ideology. ‘Radical Muslims and Radical Islam’ are terms brought into America by terrorist loving countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE to name a few.
Dave Gaubatz spent 20 years as an active duty USAF (Special Agent/OSI), 3.5 years as a civilian 1811 Federal Agent, trained by the U.S. State Department in Arabic, and was the first U.S. Federal Agent to enter Iraq in 2003. He is also a counterterrorism counterintelligence officer. He is co-author of the book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.
Relating “racism” to Islam asks the obvious, “are Muslims a race?” The Shadow Report does little to clarify the confusion, stating (page 2) that “Islamophobia describes an irrational fear, prejudice and hatred towards Islam, Muslims or Islamic culture.” ENAR thus condemns not just animus against Muslim individuals, but also any undefined “irrational” opposition to Islam as an idea in faith or culture. Accordingly, the report condemns as “Islamophobia” (13) not simply “criminal damage to Islamic buildings and violence against Muslims” but also “opposition to, as well as protests against, the building of mosques,” irrespective of any individual criticism of such mosques like the proposed New York City Ground Zero Mosque.
The Shadow Report similarly bemoans the poor public relations (PR) image concerning Islam and Muslims in Europe. While noting (4) that the “news media plays a critical role in shaping public opinion,” the Shadow Report declares without any empirical substantiation that “news reporting of ethnic minorities…is generally negative and distorted.” The report complains of a “tendency for the media to blame migrants and asylum seekers for high rates of unemployment and criminality.”
In contrast, the Shadow Report recommends (5) that supposedly objective journalists “[u]se positive terminology and encourage positive media reporting about ethnic and religious minorities and migrants to emphasize their economic, social and cultural contributions to European societies.” This would be part of what the report (5) describes as a desired “ethical journalism, protective of values such as equality and dignity.” Similarly (6), the report calls upon authorities to “[r]eview school curricula to ensure that they take into consideration the presence of minorities and migrants and their contribution to culture and society, and contribute to overcoming stereotypes and promoting inclusion.”
While promoting positive speech about Islam and Muslims along with other minority groups, the Shadow Report disturbingly calls for restricting negative speech on these matters. The Key Findings and the report (5) both advocate a “courageous approach to tackling hate speech and racist rhetoric in the public discourse” and a “zero tolerance policy to stigmatizing comments and terminology likely to incite violence, racism or other forms of discrimination.” While most EU members (4) “have legal provisions in place for tackling hate speech…in some cases they are insufficient or ineffective.”
Thus the report, in reiterating this charge on page 30, states that “[i]n some cases measures still need to be brought in.” In particular, the report (5) deems “regulation of the internet” as “seriously inadequate and often completely lacking” even though “[s]ocial media and social networking sites have become a growing space for disseminating xenophobic, Islamophobic and racist discourse.” EU members should accordingly “[r]einforce legislation to monitor hate on the internet and in the media.”
The report (30) identifies Austrian politicians, “particularly from far-right parties,” as “regular perpetrators of hate speech.” The report references the October 14, 2011, acquittal of the provincial Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partie Österreichs or FPÖ) chairman in Styria, Gerhard Kurzmann, of incitement charges. The Styria FPÖ had posted on its website a game entitled Moschee Baba (Austrian slang for “Mosque Goodbye”) in which players targeted mosques, minarets, and muezzins on screen, something that brought prosecution accusations of replicating a shooting gallery. The Shadow Report finds that this case “demonstrates the difficulty in successfully prosecuting hate speech in Austria, especially when the perpetrator is a public figure.”
Andrew E. Harrod serves as a Legal Clerk for The Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum. Mr. Harrod is also a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. This article was commissioned by The Legal Project.
American journalists have been “subdued” when it comes to reporting on Islamic radicalization, “largely by intimidation and the fear of accusations of Islamophobia –[which] is the Islamists’ greatest coup,” Muslim physician and writer Qanta Ahmed argues in a new column.
She points to Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson’s new documentary, “Jihad in America: The Grand Deception,” for examples about radical connections and ideals espoused by national Islamist groups that are ignored by the media.
“‘The Grand Deception’ exposes radical Islamists in their own words,” Ahmed writes, something “shattering to any Muslim in America – and is exactly why our communities invite unwanted scrutiny. In their own voices, American Islamists demand violent jihad against the United States.”
The documentary has impressed other viewers, with Orange County Register editorial writer Rory Cohen calling it a “must see” for showing “how far the Muslim Brotherhood has reached within our own political fabric in less than three decades.”
But media coverage fails to show the diversity of ideas and beliefs held by Muslims in America, Ahmed writes, noting adherents to 70 sects and people with roots in nearly as many countries. There’s a “battle for America’s Muslim narrative” that the media fails to recognize and cover.
“If only the media paid the same scrutiny to such data as to that gathered by the IPT in The Grand Deception … we would greatly advance the public debate. It’s time to emerge from our torpor. Refusing to debate these issues, however uncomfortable or intimidating, is a grand deception indeed, one which we accomplish at our own hand and our own peril.”
Read her whole column here. Learn more about the film “The Grand Deception” here.
“As a community, we do have a ‘Jewish problem.’ There is no point pretending otherwise.” — Mehdi Hasan, British Muslim journalist
How rife is anti-Semitism among Muslims? Well if you poll the so-called “Muslim world, ” as Pew and other organizations have done, the answer is: very rife indeed. Take Pakistan for instance. In 2006 only 6% of the population had a “favorable” attitude towards Jews. In 2011 when that question was polled in Pakistan again, favorable attitudes towards Jews had gone down to just 2%.
Of course if you were to cite this figure, you would get an inevitable set of responses, such as claims that the figure was so worrying because “everyone knows” that Pakistan is a somewhat “challenging” country in that regard.
So take a nice moderate Arab country such as Jordan, for instance. After all, it has a peace treaty with Israel and everything.
Alas, the news is not much better. In 2006, just 1% of Jordanians polled had a positive attitude towards Jews. But there is some good news: when they were polled again in 2011, this number had soared to an amazing 2%. So if Pew could just hang in there for another couple of decades, Jordanian attitudes towards Jews might climb to the giddy heights of philo-Semitism enjoyed in Pakistan back in 2006.
Of course the problem of discussing this, or even mentioning it, is that even just citing the figures is likely to get you condemned for being “Islamophobic.” It is the same with everything else in the area. If you mention that a startlingly small number of people think that Arabs, as opposed to Jews, carried out the 9/11 attacks, you will be thought of as at best somebody with startlingly bad manners. Go on to extrapolate the lessons one might draw from all this and you will be treated as some knuckle-dragging racist.
So how interesting it was this past week that a prominent British Muslim writer, for perhaps the first time – certainly in his own career – attempted to tackle this subject.
On September 25, 1789, Congress passed the Bill of Rights, anchored by the very important First Amendment. Today, our cherished right of freedom of speech is under assault. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) wants to criminalize speech that “denigrates” Islam. Muslim Brotherhood connected organizations and their politically correct enablers regularly engage in name calling and character assassination to silence those who dare speak out about the threat of radical Islam.
This is why, on September 25, 2013, 224 years after the passage of the Bill of Rights, patriots across America will host events and educate the public about how freedom of speech is under attack – and what we all can do to protect it.
WHEN: SEPTEMBER 25, 2013
WHAT: HIGHLIGHTING AMERICA’S COMMITMENT TO FREE SPEECH AND THE ONGOING EFFORTS BY THE OIC AND THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TO STRIP US OF THAT FREEDOM.
Commit to host the event on September 25, 2013.
You must hold the event in an indoor location where a video can be shown and access can be controlled (versus an outdoor venue), such as:
- Meeting in your home
- In a church, synagogue or other house of worship
- In an American Legion, VFW, or similar hall
- A public library
- A hotel meeting room
You also have the option during the day on September 25th to hold up signs and hand out printed materials at public venues, such as street corners.
You will be provided instructions and materials to use at your indoor event and at outdoor public venues (if you choose that additional option).
Commit to this being an educational event, not a confrontational event. Our goal is to help people understand how their free speech rights are under assault, not to get into confrontations with those who disagree with us.
Put the word out and get RSVP’s for the indoor event so you will know how many to expect, to ensure your venue is adequate.
ACT! for America will announce how many “Freedom of Speech Day” events will take place and will advertise exact locations of each venue for those hosts who confirm to us that they want us to.
In this series of national webcasst, ACT! for America documents the growing worldwide clamor for suppression of speech perceived as “offensive” to Islam, and what ACT! for America is doing to combat this increasingly serious threat to the First Amendment:
An Open Letter to Members of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and the State Legislatures
Oppose the Implementation of UN Resolution 16/18:
A Threat to Free Speech
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an organization of 56 Muslim states and the Palestinian Authority, has been trying for more than a decade to win UN-wide support of a resolution that calls on nations to prohibit speech that allegedly “defames” religion.
However, the evidence is clear that the OIC is concerned primarily about any speech it views as being critical of Islam, what it calls “Islamophobia.”
In the past, the United States has opposed such resolutions, correctly asserting that they are contrary to our First Amendment right of free speech.
In 2011, at the U.S.’s request, the OIC drafted a new resolution that would supposedly balance America’s constitutional protection of free speech with OIC concerns about “Islamophobia.” This resolution passed, with U.S. backing.
This new resolution, UN Resolution 16/18, no longer uses language such as “defamation,” but instead uses European-style hate speech language that has been used to criminalize speech critical of Islam in countries such as Austria and the Netherlands.
The OIC is now aggressively working to implement its definition of the resolution. Its position is clearly spelled out in a February 18, 2013, article in the Saudi Gazette entitled “OIC gears up to get denigration of religions criminalized.”
Given that the OIC is now pushing for nations to criminalize speech that it views as “Islamophobic,” we, the undersigned, call on our legislators to pass resolutions opposing the implementation of UN Resolution 16/18 as both unnecessary and a threat to America’s constitutional protection of free speech.
Looks like the Prime Minister of Turkey will be starring in another one of our bus ads. Criticism of the most brutal and violent ideology on the planet is a “crime against humanity.”
“Just like Zionism, anti-Semitism and fascism, it becomes unavoidable that Islamophobia must be regarded as a crime against humanity,” Erdogan said.
The UN is worse than useless. They aid and abet Hitler’s heirs.
“Just like Zionism, anti-Semitism and fascism, it becomes unavoidable that Islamophobia must be regarded as a crime against humanity,” Erdogan said.
Turkey’s Erdogan to UN Conference: “Zionism is Crime Against Humanity”UN Watch
Ban Ki-moon Stayed Silent, Must Speak Out
Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan (podium, right) and Ban Ki-moon (second from left)
GENEVA, Feb. 28 – UN Watch expressed shock over anti-Jewish remarks delivered by Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan at a UN summit for tolerance, and urged UN chief Ban Ki-moon — who waspresent on the stage yet stayed silent — to speak out and condemn the speech. The Geneva-based human rights group also called on Erdogan to apologize.
Speaking yesterday before a Vienna forum of the Alliance of Civilizations, a UN framework for West-Islam dialogue, Erodgan called Zionism, the movement founded in 1897 for Jewish self-determination, a “crime against humanity,” likening it with anti-Semitism, fascism, and Islamophobia. Click here for video (minute 8:00 to 8:30); click here for Turkish news report.
“We remind secretary-general Ban Ki-moon that his predecessor Kofi Annan recognized that the UN’s 1975 Zionism-is-racism resolution was an expression of anti-Semitism, and he hailed its repeal.”
UN Watch urged all members of the Alliance’s High Level Group – including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Rabbi Arthur Schneier and Professor John Esposito — “to denounce remarks that fundamentally contradict the very purpose of a forum supposedly dedicated to mutual tolerance.”
“Erdogan’s misuse of this global podium to incite hatred, and his resort to Ahmandinejad-style pronouncements appealing to the lowest common denominator in the Muslim world,” said Neuer, ”will only strengthen the belief that his government is hewing to a confrontational stance, and fundamentally unwilling to end its four-year-old feud with Israel.”
