Who is Responsible for the Atrocities in the Muslim World?

Nepalese migrant workerGatestone Institute, by Uzay Bulut, June 27, 2015:

  • If colonialism were the main problem, Muslims, too, still are, colonizers — and not particularly “humanitarian” ones, at that.
  • Islamic jihad and Islamic violence; the sanctioning of sex slavery; dehumanization of women; hatred and persecution of non-Muslims have been commonplace in the Islamic world ever since the inception of the religion. Deny everything and blame “the infidel.”
  • But is it America that tells these men to treat their wives or sisters as less than fully human? If we want to criticize the West for what is going on in the Muslim world, we should criticize it for not doing more to stop these atrocities.
  • Trying to whitewash the damage that the Islamic ideology has done to the Muslim world, while putting the blame of Islamic atrocities on the West, will never help Muslims face their own failures and come up with progressive ways to resolve them.

Every time the ISIS, Boko Haram, Iran, or any terrorist group in the Muslim world is discussed, many people tend to hold the West responsible for the devastation and murders they commit. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Blaming the failures in the Muslim world on Western nations is simply bigotry and an attempt to shift the blame and to prevent us from understanding the real root cause of the problem.

When these Islamic terrorist groups abduct women to sell them as sex-slaves or “wives;” conduct mass crucifixions and forced conversions; behead innocent people en masse; try to extinguish religious minorities and demolish irreplaceable archeological sites, the idea that this is the fault of the West is ludicrous, offensive and wrong.

Western states, like many other states, try to protect the security of their citizens. What they essentially need, therefore, are peaceful states as partners with which they can have economic, commercial and diplomatic relations. They do not need genocidal terrorist groups that destroy life, peace and stability in huge swaths across the Muslim world.

Western states also have democratic and humanitarian values, which Islamic states do not. The religious and historical experiences of the Western world and the Islamic world are so enormously different that they ended up having completely different cultures and values.

The West, established on Jewish, Christian and secular values, has created a far more humanitarian, free and democratic culture. Sadly, much of the Muslim world, under Islamic sharia law, has created a misogynistic, violent and totalitarian culture.

This does not mean that the West has been perfect and sinless. The West still commits some appalling crimes: Europe is guilty of paving the way for the slaughter of six million Jews in the Holocaust, and for still not protecting its Jewish communities. Even today, many European states contort logic to recognize Hamas, which openly states that it aims to commit genocide against Jewish people.

The West, however, accepts responsibility for the failures in its own territories: for instance, not being able to protect European women from Muslim rapists. These men have moved to Europe to benefit from the opportunities and privileges there, but instead of showing gratitude to European people and government, they have raped the women there, and tried to impose Islamic sharia law.

If we want to criticize the West for what is going on in the Muslim world, we should criticize it for not doing more to stop these atrocities.

The West, and particularly the U.S., should use all of its power to stop them — especially the genocides committed against Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims in the Muslim world.

We should also criticize the West — and others, such as the United Nations and its distorted Gaza War report — for supporting those who proudly commit terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, and we should criticize the West for not siding with the state of Israel in the face of genocidal Jew-hatred.

We should criticize the West for letting Islamic anti-Semitism grow in Europe, making lives unbearable for Jews day by day.

We should criticize the West for having accepted without a murmur the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus for more than 40 years.

We should also criticize the West for leaving the fate of Kurds, a persecuted and stateless people, to the tender mercies of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria — and now the Islamic State (ISIS). On June 25, ISIS carried out yet another deadly attack, killing and wounding dozens of people in the Kurdish border town of Kobani, in Syrian Kurdistan.

And we should criticize especially the current U.S. government for not being willing to take serious action to stop ISIS, Boko Haram and other extremist Islamic groups.[1]

The list could go on and on. Moreover, it would not be realistic to claim that these groups or regimes all misunderstand the teachings of their religion in exactly the same way.

It would also not be realistic to claim that the West has created all these hundreds of Islamic terror groups across the Muslim world.

The question, then, is: Who or what does create all these terrorist groups and regimes?

In almost all parts of the Muslim world, systematic discrimination, and even murder, are rampant — especially of women and non-Muslims. Extremist Islamic organizations, however, are not the only offenders. Many Muslim civilians who have no ties with any Islamist group also commit these offenses daily. Jihad (war in the service of Islam) and the subjugation of non-Muslims are deeply rooted in the scriptures and history of Islam.

Ever since the seventh century, Muslim armies have invaded and captured Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian lands; for more than 1400 years since, they have continued their jihad, or Islamic raids, against other religions.

Many people seem to be justifiably shocked by the barbarism of ISIS, but Islamic jihad does not belong just to ISIS. Violent jihad is a centuries-long tradition of Islamic ideology. ISIS is just one jihadist army of Islam. There are many.

All of this is an Islamic issue. The free West has absolutely nothing to do with the creation and preservation of this un-free culture.

Read more 

Uzay Bulut, born and raised a Muslim, is a Turkish journalist based in Ankara.

Deborah Weiss exposes Georgetown’s Orwellian “Bridges Initiative”

John Esposito

John Esposito

Frontpage, by Deborah Weiss, May 20, 2015:

“Nothing bad happened in the West after the publication of the Danish cartoons in 2006. Nobody died.” “There is no more anti-Semitism in the West anymore. The ‘Jewish Question’ has been settled with equality.”

These are just some of the lies spewed forth by “esteemed panelists” at the launch of Georgetown University’s Bridges Initiative, which embodies a new approach and stepped up efforts for the Islamist propaganda campaigns waged by the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU).

On April 30, 2015, in Jesuit Georgetown University’s Healy Hall, amidst paintings of priests and Christian imagery, The Bridges Initiative was launched. The event was titled, “A Conversation on Islamophobia”. The motto of the campaign is “Protecting Pluralism – Ending Islamophobia.

Opening remarks by John Esposito, Director of the ACMCU, whose pockets are lined with Saudi money, explained that Islamophobia is not a about Muslims but about pluralism. “Tea party types like Pamela Geller, [sic] tweets to her followers to protest, and this causes Bill O’Reilly to have a show on Fox News.” Then pop culture through its arbiter of social media, especially Pamela Geller’s blog, influences Islamophobic activists without “alternative narratives.” The Islamophobia industry is not arbitrarily popping up, he explains. It exists due to funding and networks. And, for reasons Esposito can’t quite figure out, Islamophobia is worse in Europe.

Ann Norton, Professor of “Muslim Political Thought” at the University of Pennsylvania was the first speaker and is responsible for the above comments on the Danish cartoons and anti-Semitism. According to Norton, “every period of time has its challenges” and in the 19th century, people were afraid of “Jewish terrorists”. This fear became bigotry and was the reason for anti-Semitism prior to the Holocaust. But now, in the West, the “Jewish Question” has been resolved. Too bad the Jews fleeing France in droves due to (primarily Islamic) anti-Semitism haven’t heard the good news.

Currently, Norton explains, the same thing is happening with Muslims. There is terrorism and thus fear, which has turned into “bigotry” against Muslims. (Please note that prejudice by definition is a pre-judgment, and not a post-judgement based on a particular group’s behavior.) Never-the-less, Norton says, people “perceive” that Islam doesn’t treat women well and “perceive” that it is in opposition to free speech. “But some speech puts our national security at risk!” (Of course, it wouldn’t if all Muslims would refrain from responding to speech violently.) The real problem, is “the indictment of the West, the shame of Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and indefinite detention.” Yeah, that’s the problem. Well, what can one expect from the author of a book titled, “Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire”?

Norton insists that drawing a cartoon of the Muslim Prophet Mohammad is A-OK in Islam, but the problem is doing it repeatedly to tell us what we must say: that some are trying to “oblige people to praise bigotry” and to be “pro-Israel”. After all, freedom of speech includes the freedom to refrain from speech. And, well, it really is awful that all those Islamophobes are pointing guns to the heads of Americans forcing them to support Israel!

Norton rejects the notion of a clash of civilizations and iterates that accepting Islam and Muslims is the true challenge of whether America accepts Western values of tolerance. Islam is “the ‘Other’ of Democracy” she states. (“Otherizing Muslims” was a theme throughout the conference). And yet, she is an admitted fan of the Muslim Brotherhood theologian, Sayyid Qutb, author of “Milestones” because he supported private property rights.

Ms. Norton is a strange amalgamation of radical leftist politics and support for Islam. She likes the powerful image of the Bridge, because it brings people closer together. Of course, the ACMCU’s bridge flows in only one direction – towards the Islamization of America.

The next speaker, Mehdi Hasan, an Aljazeera presenter, asserted that there is rampant Islamophobia and anti-Muslim “hysteria” in the West. “You can say things about Muslims … that you can’t say about any other group.” He repeatedly made false analogies, pointing out that all the negative comments stated in public discourse regarding Muslims would be unacceptable if one substituted the word “Jews.” Apparently, facts make no difference. He also focused on the Muslim as “the Other”, incorrectly implying that Islam and Judeo-Christian values are in sync. He brought up numerous newspaper headlines to demonstrate negative commentary about Islam or Muslims, erroneously claiming the facts asserted were untrue. For example, he claimed it’s a lie that some UK banks stopped using piggy banks due to Muslim offense. Yet, UK banks have done exactly that.

Hasan also did a very good job of identifying the “Islamophobia industry’s” positions and countering them, calling many of them “myths”. Citing the leftist Center for American Progress’ “Fear, Inc.” as support for his contention that funding and networks that have given rise to Islamophobia, he also argued that Islamophobia is “immoral and dangerous”, making “extremism” more appealing to mainstream Muslims.

The final speaker was Roland Schatz, President of Media Tenor International. (The subtitle on his website is “creating perceptions”). His organization focuses on statistical research and strategic media analysis. The bulk of his presentation consisted of charts and graphs created over the last 15 years, monitoring whether news reporting was positive, negative, or neutral on subjects including terrorism and Islam. The accuracy of the news reports was not addressed.

Schatz’ organization is pushing a book titled, “Constructive News.” He has given up on getting the media to drop negative reporting on Islam and Muslims. Now, he’s resorting to asking news media to make things balanced. Schatz believes that every time the media reports a negative incident about Muslims, it should also report a positive incident. If it can’t find one, the negative incident should be omitted.

Additionally, Schatz is upset by America’s “obsession” with Muslims and freedom of speech. “My right to freedom stops where yours starts,” he proclaimed. However, the examples he gave indicated a right to be free from insult, a right conspicuously absent from the U.S. Constitution. It made him angry that politicians world-over participated in France’s unity march after the murders at Charlie Hebdo magazine. “Je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo!” he declared, followed by an outburst of audience applause.

Schatz insists that freedom of speech and other freedoms should not be singled out as special, but rather there should only be one word that includes all freedoms equally, “freedom!” Of course, this is entirely false, as not all freedoms are equal. Some are considered fundamental, some rights are enabling rights, without which other rights would not exist. Indeed, freedom of speech is unique, is fundamental, and is more important and central to fundamental human rights than many other “rights” are.

Schatz claims that the public is victim to bigoted, Islamophobic media, and therefore can’t be blamed. It is up to Muslims to join panels, the media, and become involved so “another voice” can be heard. After all, Islamophobia really has nothing to do with Islam. It’s “xenophobia” similar to bigotry against Catholics when they first arrived in the U.S, and such “racism” is institutionalized. Like Hasan, Schatz believes that the West is baselessly treating Muslims like “the Other.”

Finally, Schatz accused the manufactured “Islamophobia industry” of publishing works from “pseudo experts” and “faux reports” all due to a closely-weaved network of activists, policy experts, think tanks and politicians, funded by a few Islamophobic foundations. Yes, we are all rich and doing this for the money!

It is likely no coincidence that the theological underpinnings of Islam, which refer to Jews as “apes and pigs” and treat non-Muslims as dhimmis or worse, were entirely absent from this seminar, as was a discussion of Islamic terrorism. Instead of acknowledging that so-called “Islamophobia” might result from the actions taken by a global Islamist movement, the assumption was all “anti-Islam” sentiment constitutes bigotry. Continually conflating “Islam” and “Muslims”, panelists failed to acknowledge that the public might have legitimate concerns about Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities, and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam. Yet, in America and Europe, where Muslims are free and equal, the public and media is accused of “otherizing” them, despite the fact that Shariah law is the ultimate Otherizer.

The charge of a “manufactured Islamophobia industry” which arises out of nothing more than networks for the sake of money is laughable. While a few make a nice living derived from funding, the majority involved in this movement have made great sacrifices for the Cause because of its importance. Moreover, its funding pales in comparison to the Saudi and Soros money that goes to support the anti-Islamophobia industry, which actually is manufactured. The facts speak for themselves: Islamic doctrine, Shariah law, the jihadists own words, Saudi Arabia’s and Iran’s theocratic laws, all provide indisputable evidence for the claims of the anti-Shariah movement. Accusations of money, networks and faux reports, made by those who accept Saudi money and deny the evils of Shariah law, constitute a classic example of psychological projection. Everything this panel accused the “Islamophobia industry” of doing, is something they are doing themselves.

The Bridges Initiative appears to be distinguishable from Georgetown’s past anti-Islamophobia campaigns in that it aspires to collect data from, and act as a repository for, seemingly objective data including charts, surveys, articles, news and statistics, provided by high profile professors, think tanks and policy “experts” to give it an air of legitimacy. It plans to funnel this body of work through Facebook, Twitter and other social media, hoping it will go viral and preferably undisputed.

The ACMCU and other Saudi-funded and interfaith programs have long been centers of indoctrination of America’s youth, teaching them in an Orwellian fashion that America is evil and the Muslim world is Victim.

Those who work on national security issues realize that we have to identify the ideological enemy in order to defeat it. But, Georgetown’s new program demonstrates that it is equally imperative that America also knows herself. One way or another, students must be inculcated with knowledge of the US Constitution, American history, and the fragility of freedom, in order to fight for its continuance, and not fall prey to politically correct, but factually false programs, like ACMCU’s Bridges Initiative.

The ISIS Beheader Is the Victim

article-2732393-20B42B9A00000578-389_306x504-423x350Frontpage, March 3, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield:

After watching Jihadi John saw through so many human necks in the name of Allah, we now know his name and his name is “Victim”.

Sure Mohammed Emwazi, aka Jihadi John, may be a brutal killer, but he was actually a “gentle, kind … beautiful young man” who was “radicalized by Britain.” If the brutal monster was extreme about anything, it was being “extremely kind”.

That’s according to Asim Qureshi of CAGE, one of those groups campaigning against Islamophobia and efforts by the beleaguered British to prevent further kind and gentle beheadings.

Asim is another of those extremely kind Muslim men who might be extremely kind or kind of extreme depending on your perspective.

He was caught on video saying, ”When we see the example of our brothers and sisters fighting in Chechyna, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan, then we know where the example lies. When we see Hezbollah defeating the armies of Israel we know what the solution is and where the victory lies.”

“We know that it is incumbent upon all of us to support the jihad of our brothers and sisters in these countries when they are facing the oppression of the west. Allahu akbar!”

CAGE claims that criticism of Boko Haram, currently using little girls as suicide bombers in a quest to wipe out the Christians of Nigeria, is about “demonizing Islam”.

The Boko Haram kidnappers and rapists of Nigerian girls are also doubtlessly “extremely kind” and “gentle”. The gentlest of them all may be Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau who announced on video, “I abducted your girls. I will sell them in the market, by Allah. There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell. He commands me to sell. I will sell women. I sell women.”

CAGE recently participated in an event in which a call to execute apostates was cheered by the audience. We’ll have to assume that those executions will be carried out in a kind and gentle manner.

The Washington Post referred to CAGE as a “British human rights group” and claimed that it “highlights some of the United Kingdom’s crimes against Islam”. Of the ISIS Jihadists, who rape young girls and behead their brothers, the Washington Post asked, “Are they actually victims?”

It speaks of Emwazi being “driven to the machete”. We hear of some men being driven to drink by life’s troubles, but now for the first time we have a man driven to travel thousands of miles away and chop off other people’s heads. You might think they’re the victims, but it turns out that he was driven to do it.

And it’s true.

Britain did indeed drive Mohammed, a wealthy kid who graduated from the University of Westminster, to chop heads. It didn’t however do it by oppressing him with a nice degree at a nice university.

It radicalized him by coddling his violent hatred of non-Muslims. It provided him with the opportunity to attend the Greenwich Islamic Centre, the same mosque as the Muslim beheaders of a British soldier, whose Imam urged students to become terrorists. It radicalized him by treating him like a victim.

The media has allowed Asim and CAGE to drive the narrative of a “kind” and “gentle” beheader turned monster because the authorities suspected him of being exactly what he was. It’s a tempting progressive narrative in which law enforcement is the cause of the very problem it is fighting.

Asim Qureshi claims that counterterrorism radicalizes terrorists. The obvious answer is to stop fighting terrorists and they’ll go away. And if that advice from an Allahu Akbar shouter who finds Hezbollah inspiring doesn’t work, there’s always complete abject surrender. It didn’t work for any of Mohammed’s victims, but there’s always the off chance that this with some proper begging, he’ll come around.

What do the appeasers of the world have to lose except their heads? It’s not as if they’re using them.

The UK allowed, Mohammed, the kind and gentle beheader, to get away with everything he did. He got away with stalking a female classmate and with using a stun gun to commit robberies. He got away with stealing bicycles and with waving a Jihadist flag in public in a country where burning a Koran is a crime. He was extensively involved with Jihadist networks and he still remained a free man.

Is it any wonder that he worked his way up to becoming the Islamic State’s video beheader?

No Muslim country would have tolerated Mohammed’s antics for very long. Not unless he agreeably decided to direct his hatred toward another country. The UK put up with Mohammed. Its agents monitored him and tried to keep him from hurting anyone by joining up with a terrorist group. This was the monstrous act of cruelty that the beheader’s apologists now blame for turning him into a monster.

A Muslim country would have jammed Mohammed into a hole in the ground. Kuwait gave him and his family the boot for mere suspicion of ties to Saddam. The UK gave him the world and asked for nothing in return. That was its mistake. And innocent people have paid the price.

It wasn’t British counterterrorism that radicalized Mohammed; it was the lack of accountability. What are the defining characteristics of the Islamic State?  Order, structure and rules. ISIS is to Europe as the Nazis were to Weimar Germany. Totalitarian systems offer an antidote to extremely permissive ones.

ISIS’ European recruits meld the sociopathic aimless violence of teenagers raised in a society losing its values with the primeval totalitarian brutality of Islam. It’s Clockwork Orange meets the Koran. A permissive society willing to entertain fantasies of Mohammed Emwazi’s victimhood helps create his kind by excusing his kind.

Mohammed Emwazi grew up in a world in which he always had someone else to blame. That much hasn’t changed. Except these days the blame isn’t directed at abstractions like the police, the Jews or shopkeepers who object to being robbed, but the people whose heads he is cutting off.

And even with him off doing what he does worst, the media also does what it does worst. Its job is explaining that Islamic terrorism isn’t the fault of the men doing it, but the men and women it is being done to. Mohammed isn’t the monster. We are for driving him to the machete.

Mohammed won’t stop cutting off heads and the media won’t stop with its beheadsplaining. If an organization like CAGE didn’t exist, the media would have invented it.

It’s not the police that create monsters like Mohammed, it’s the media. Would ISIS really make so many videos of beheading hostages if it didn’t know that the media would rush to publicize every last one of them? Would ISIS have so many recruits, if the media hadn’t spent so much time claiming that Muslims in Europe are the victims of oppression and that bombing terrorists is somehow wrong and immoral?

Would Europe really be so helpless in the face of Islamic terror, if the media didn’t act as the Lord Haw-Haws and Tokyo Roses of the Jihad? If the media had spent WW2 insisting that the Luftwaffe pilots were the real victims who were driven to the bomber, the war would have ended with Hitler driving through London in a touring car. Now the media is doing its best to make up for that unfortunate omission.

And so Jihadi John, that enigmatic monster, has a name now. It’s “Victim”. The men whose lives he ended were forced to recite rambling confessions of crimes, but the media voluntarily recites confessions of crimes against Mohammed and Islam on our behalf every hour on the hour.

Perhaps then the media ought to kindly and gently behead itself.

Also see:

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.

What Elephant? What Room?

tnjihadGates of Vienna, by  Baron Bodissey:

An organization known as the Religious Communicators Council will be meeting next week in Nashville. Based on their agenda, they represent the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood, with the usual suspects from dhimmi mainstream Christian and Jewish groups providing the necessary veneer of “interfaith dialogue”.

There’s a discussion of this important event in latest newsletter from the Tennessee Council for Political Justice:

What the Religious Communicators Council WON’T Talk About in April

The Religious Communicators Council (RCC) will hold their annual convention in Nashville on April 3-5. According to their speakers schedule, they won’t be talking about:


  • the recent Pew Study findings of Christian oppression in the Muslim majority countries of Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Maldives, Pakistan, Iran and Yemen
  • the BDS campaign against Israel being waged by U.S. based Hamas supporters, college campus Students for Justice in Palestine and Muslim Students Associations groups

Introductory speaker Remziya Suleyman will likely tell her same old embellished story of how she organized all the Muslims in Tennessee to beat back alleged anti-sharia legislation. She likes to portray herself as having “defeated the bill” when in fact the key provisions are now in state law. Bet she won’t bother to tell her audience that it was actually an anti-terrorism/material support bill based on the jihad murder perpetrated by Muslim convert Carlos Bledsoe. Bet she also won’t bother to explain to her audience that she is the one who equated anti-terrorism and material support with sharia!

For sure she won’t disclose to her audience that before she started her pro-sharia campaign, she admitted that “she never knew the concept of sharia…” In fact, she continues to remind us how little she knows about her own doctrine as she continues to promote the idea that anything violent or negative associated with Muslims and Islam is simply “culture” because it is not taught in the Quran. So how about those verses in the Quran that make wife beating sacred?

Daoud Abudiab is also a scheduled speaker. He is a Palestinian now living in Spring Hill, Tennessee who serves as the President of the Columbia Islamic Center. He will use the left’s double standard to tell the story about how an Islamophobe burned down his mosque like what every other Islamophobe out there would try to do. He’ll paint anyone who questions whether the U.S. should follow the U.K.’s example of allowing a parallel sharia system to thrive as an Islamophobe.. But when a Muslim like Bin Laden or Nidhal Hassan commits murder he characterizes it as a hijacking of the religion.

The RCC will get their victimhood mileage out of both of these speakers because they wear many hats. Both are involved with the progressive leftist organization Religions for Peace USA. Suleyman is the director of the Muslim American Center for Outreach and a CAIR/Muslim Brotherhood promoter. She also keeps her hand in refugee issues that augments her “American Muslim yearning for her Kurdish homeland.”

Abudiab is involved with the Tennessee American Muslim Advisory Council, the far left anti-American TN Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition and the open borders group Clergy for Tolerance. It would be interesting to hear Abudiab’s response to the pro-Palestinian student group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) newly established at UT-Knoxville, whose sister chapter was recently suspended at Northeastern University and cited for aggressive intimidation of Jewish students at University of Michigan.

The heavy representation in the RCC by the United Methodist Church (UMC) makes it highly unlikely that they will ever take up the issue of the anti-Israel Jew-hating BDS campaign. The UMC has been entangled with Israel hating Islamists not only through Mercy-USA, but also through the cozy “God Box” otherwise known as the United Methodist Building in Washington, D.C. In 2012 the UMC General Conference voted to recommend boycotts and sanctions. UMC is a vocal and active participant in boycott initiatives, including the recent one against Soda Stream.

The Newseum Institute, (part of the TN Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt), represented by Gene Policinski, has been a long-time Islamic apologist. The institute has spent considerable resources and used their credibility as an advocate for “unbiased” media while defending the Muslim Brotherhood organizations and their sharia driven agenda. (read parts 1 -7 starting here.)

Bud Heckman from Religions for Peace USA (RFPUSA) will facilitate a discussion about the refugee propaganda film “Welcome to Shelbyville.” It seems fitting that an organization like RFPUSA would be involved with this film because of its own ties to leading Islamist Muslim Brotherhood organizations in the U.S.

The RCC’s convention focus is about Muslim victimhood. Anyone who knows anything about the magnitude of Christian persecution and the Jew-hating anti-Israel BDS campaign knows that these issues are mutually exclusive with Muslim victimhood. In fact, Christian persecution and the anti-Israel BDS campaign are the result of Islamist aggression, a topic the progressive leftists at the RCC wouldn’t want to be caught dead admitting.

What else can you expect from an organization whose Nashville chapter is headed by a Scientologist, Rev. Brian Fessler whose religious cult is based the arrival of the extraterrestrial warlord Xenu?

The Real Agenda Behind the Push for “Islamophobia”

by Raheel Raza:

Islamists have been successful in building the Islamophobia industry: it diverts attention from activities they would probably prefer not be noticed, such as promoting sharia law in the West, stealth jihad, and a push to implement a global Islamic caliphate, among many others.

What is ironic and hypocritical about the Islamophobia hype from members of the OIC is their double-standards when it comes to minorities in their own lands. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, the Palestinian Authority and Iran are among OIC members that have appalling human rights violations against minorities.

Islamophobia has almost become a fad for a certain group of academics and Muslims across North America. 2013 was a bumper year for Islamophobia conferences in America and abroad.

  • “Islam, Political Islam, and Islamophobia: an International Conference” was held at Indiana University, Bloomington on March 29-30, 2013.
  • Islam, Politics and Islamophobia,” an international conference of the Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies Chair, took place at the Indiana Memorial Union Faculty.
  • International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media“, hosted in Istanbul, was organized by the Directorate General of Press and Information, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and under the auspices of Mr. Bulent Arinc, the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey, and took place in September, 2013. The website starts off by stating “Islamophobia, which is a term used to express the groundless fear and intolerance of Islam and Muslims, has swept the world, becoming detrimental to international peace especially in recent years.”
  • The IWIC’s 2013 conference on “Women in Islam,” in Atlanta, Georgia from November 22 to 24, used the theme, “Eradicating Islamophobia.”

One would think that four conferences in one year would be enough for the International group of speakers to discuss, debate and hash out that, in their view, there is an epidemic of Muslim-bashing taking place in North America.

However it seems that these are not enough to complete the agenda of the Islamists. Therefore this year the University of California, Berkeley is hosting its fifth annual International conference on the study of Islamophobia, from April 14 to 19, 2014.

It is frightening to realize that this is their fifth such conference; the website states, “the obsessive pre-occupation of everything related to Islam and Muslims, congressional and parliamentary hearings criminalizing Muslims and violations of their civil liberties and rights, domestic and international surveillance programs exclusively on Muslims and Arabs, extra-judicial use of force on Muslims and Arabs, interventions, military campaigns, and policies rationalizing its exercise, are, in essence, what we see and bear witness in the Muslim world. These are the direct effects of latent Islamophobia.”

University of California, Berkeley is home to Professor Hatem Bazian, who directs the school’s “Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project,” and teaches a course titled, “Asian American Studies 132AC: Islamophobia.”

Seriously? A course on Islamophobia? Recently, Professor Bazian told 100 students in his class to tweet about Islamophobia — all being done to promote an agenda of “victimhood.”


UC-Berkeley Professor Hatem Bazian speaks on “Promoting Islamophobia” at the Occupy AIPAC Summit in 2012. (Image source: YouTube screenshot)

Obviously the Islamophobia conferences, the courses and the tweeting professor must find support for their self-serving propaganda somewhere. Part of this support comes from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an international organization consisting of 57 Arab and Muslim member states, including the entity of the Palestinian Authority. The organization states that it is “the collective voice of the Muslim world” and works to “safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony.” The term “Muslim world” is offensive: no one speaks for all Muslims, and for the OIC to consider itself the “voice of the Muslim world” is dictatorial in the extreme.

No surprise, then, that on their website they have an Islamophobia Observatory, where they mention their support of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, adopted in 2011, on “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief”.

What is ironic and hypocritical about all the Islamophobia hype by members of the OIC is their double standards when it comes to minorities in their own lands. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Bangladesh, Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, the Palestinian Authority and Iran are among OIC members that have appalling human rights violations against minorities, and are routinely ignored under UNHRC Resolution 16/18.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Also see:

Hate Crime Stats Deflate ‘Islamophobia’ Myth

Police investigate anti-Semitic graffiti in Edison, New Jersey, in 2009.

Police investigate anti-Semitic graffiti in Edison, New Jersey, in 2009.

by David J. Rusin
National Review Online
January 11, 2013

A detailed analysis of FBI statistics covering ten full calendar years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks reveals that, on a per capita basis, American Muslims, contrary to spin, have been subjected to hate crimes less often than other prominent minorities. From 2002 to 2011, Muslims are estimated to have suffered hate crimes at a frequency of 6.0 incidents per 100,000 per year — 10 percent lower than blacks (6.7), 48 percent lower than homosexuals and bisexuals (11.5), and 59 percent lower than Jews (14.8). Americans should keep these numbers in mind whenever Islamists attempt to silence critics by invoking Muslim victimhood.

The federal government defines a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.” Though statutes mandating harsher punishments for hatred-inspired acts raise the specter of thought crimes, emphasize group identity over the individual, and seemingly favor certain victims over others, the FBI’s tracking of such deeds shines important light on the state of the nation. Annual reports assembled from local law enforcement data are accessible on the website of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Especially useful is Table 1 of each compilation, which summarizes the number of incidents, offenses, victims, and known offenders for hate crimes committed against members of different groups.

No class of hate crimes has seen more fluctuation than anti-Muslim ones. The norm was a few dozen incidents per year in the late 1990s, but the number jumped from 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2001, a spike attributed to post-9/11 backlash. However, it dropped to 155 in 2002 and held remarkably steady through 2006, before falling again to 115 in 2007, 105 in 2008, and 107 in 2009.

Anti-Muslim incidents rose to 160 in 2010, an increase that Islamists and their mouthpieces eagerly blamed on rampant “Islamophobia,” particularly opposition to a proposed giant mosque near Ground Zero. Based on freshly released FBI data, there was little change in 2011, with 157 incidents, 175 offenses, 185 victims, and 138 known offenders. Mark Potok of the reliably leftist Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which puts foes of radical Islam in the same category as Klansmen and neo-Nazis, has declared that “hate crimes against perceived Muslims … remained at relatively high levels” as a result of “Islam-bashing propaganda,” anti-Shari’a legislation, and ongoing resistance to new mosques, relaying that “several were attacked by apparent Islamophobes.” Note the key word: “several” in a country with at least 2,106 mosques, a few million Muslims, and 300 million–plus non-Muslims.

As hinted above, the dark portrait of America as a nation of violent bigots uniquely hostile to Muslims does not withstand quantitative scrutiny. To smooth out year-to-year variations, consider the past decade (2002–11) of FBI-recorded hate crimes. There were 1,388 incidents against Muslims during this span, compared with 25,130 against blacks; 12,030 against homosexuals and bisexuals; 9,198 against Jews; and 5,057 against Hispanics. Even majority whites endured 7,185 incidents, while Christians (Protestants and Catholics combined) were targeted in 1,126 incidents. Adherents of “other religions” faced 1,335, very close to the anti-Muslim tally.

Due to the different sizes of minority groups, however, raw numbers cannot tell the complete tale. More insightful are per capita rates. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations follow.

The U.S. Census Bureau derived the total, Hispanic, and black populations for 2000 and 2010 from direct counts. Approximating their evolution with linear models, one can obtain estimates for any non-census year and, most important, the 2002–11 averages: total (299.2 million), Hispanic (45.2 million), and black (37.4 million). Surveys indicate that around 3.5 percent of American adults identify as homosexual or bisexual; applying this percentage to the total population gives a 2002–11 average of 10.5 million. Two studies have pegged the number of American Jews at about 6.5 million in 2010. Figures for 2000 vary (5.3–6.2 million), so for simplicity we set the average Jewish population between 2002 and 2011 at 6.2 million to account for moderate growth. As for Muslims, whose population estimates have a convoluted history, reputable recent numbers have been provided by the Pew Research Center (2.75 million in 2011) and the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies (2.6 million in 2010; full data extractable here), which agree on the current size and growth rate (around 100,000 per year). The 2002–11 average is roughly 2.3 million Muslims.

Adding the FBI data yields per capita frequencies of hate crimes for the past decade. Of the five main minority groups discussed above, Jews were most likely to experience hate crimes, with 14.8 incidents per 100,000 Jews annually. Homosexuals and bisexuals (combined) came next (11.5), followed by blacks (6.7), Muslims (6.0), and Hispanics (1.1). Rates for majority whites and Christians were much smaller.

With hate crimes befalling Muslims far less often than they do Jews or homosexuals and bisexuals and slightly less often than they befall blacks, it is clear that anti-Muslim incidents are disproportionate to those targeting other minorities only in terms of the hype generated on their behalf. A closer look reinforces this conclusion.

First, despite claims about a surge of prejudice, anti-Muslim hate crimes in 2010 and 2011 merely returned to the typical post-9/11 (2002–06) pace of 150–160 incidents per year. Further, a similar number of hate crimes in 2002 and 2011 implies a lower per capita rate in 2011 because of strong population growth.

Second, what of the Muslim population estimate? In hopes of inflating their presumed clout, Islamist groups routinely assert the existence of around 7 million American Muslims, three times as many as the more objective measurements. Note, however, that this Islamist-promoted figure actually would weaken their narrative of anti-Muslim hate crimes, because a higher population reduces the per capita frequency, thus painting them as even less significant in a statistical sense.

Third, though 2001, whose rash of hate crimes against Muslims was an outlier tied to a unique event, has been excluded from the above analysis, the 2001–11 rate for Muslims was just 7.4 incidents per 100,000 per year, still far short of that applying to Jews or homosexuals and bisexuals. Self-pitying Islamists also want us to forget that in spite of 9/11-related anger, anti-Jewish hate crimes outnumbered anti-Muslim hate crimes that year by more than two to one.

Fourth, could incomplete data affect the finding that Muslims are victimized less often than many non-Muslim minorities? Theoretically, yes, but evidence for this is scant. SPLC talking heads regularly cite a 2005 Justice Department study, using surveys of victims’ perceptions of whether prejudice had motivated crimes against them, to argue that the FBI underestimates overall hate crimes by an order of magnitude. Yet even if those claims are valid, nothing suggests that anti-Muslim crimes are more or less likely to be ignored than others, which would be necessary to alter the relative frequencies of hate crimes against different groups. Another source of incompleteness is that not all local law enforcement agencies take part in the FBI’s tabulation, but once again there is no obvious bias here that would preferentially diminish hate crimes against Muslims. Also note that the percentage of participating agencies (see the FBI’s Table 12) is large and slowly climbing, covering 86 percent of the U.S. population in 2002 and 92 percent in 2011, meaning that improved reporting could have helped elevate the number of FBI-recorded hate crimes in later years. Although this impact is probably small, it further chips away at the meme of rising hate.

Fifth, consider hate crimes with the worst possible outcome: death. The subject has been in the headlines after a deranged woman suspected of murdering a Hindu man, Sunando Sen, by pushing him from a New York subway platform on December 27 told police that she “hate[s] Hindus and Muslims,” whom she collectively blames for 9/11, and that she believed Sen to be Muslim. Following the initial rush to label Sen’s murder a hate crime, journalists have learned that the alleged murderer had a long history of severe mental illness, had received only intermittent treatment despite numerous pleas for help and warnings from the family, and had repeatedly gone off her medication.

As the usual voices fault “our oversaturated Islamophobic environment” and “growing anti-Muslim hate,” they neglect to mention how rare it is for an actual or perceived Muslim to die in a hate crime. By the FBI’s count, 74 people were killed in hate crimes (“murder and nonnegligent manslaughter” in Table 4) from 2002 to 2011, but not a single one in an anti-Muslim incident. Indeed, the FBI lists no anti-Muslim fatalities since 1995, corresponding to the earliest report available.

Why do Islamists obfuscate? The false picture of an epidemic of physical assaults on Muslims distracts Americans from Islamist hatred and enshrines Muslims as the country’s leading victim class, a strategy intended to intimidate citizens into remaining quiet about Islamic supremacism and lay the groundwork for granting Muslims special privileges and protections at the expense of others. In short, anti-Muslim hate crimes are a powerful Islamist weapon.

At its extreme, the desire to achieve victim status in this manner has fueled the phenomenon of fake hate crimes, through staging, blatant misrepresentation, or both. An illustrative example is the March 2012 murder of Shaima Alawadi, a hijab-wearing California woman found beaten to death at home with a note calling her a terrorist beside her body. Islamists and their credulous media allies pounced at the opportunity to condemn the supposed tidal wave of “Islamophobia,” even as marital problems emerged as a potential motive. In November, police arrested Alawadi’s husband.

Genuine hate crimes committed against any group are deplorable, but they must be placed in the proper context. First, hate crimes are uncommon across the board. Second, despite hyperbole about “anti-Muslim violence spiralling out of control in America” and producing “one of the most hostile moments that the Muslim American community has ever experienced,” the real story is the amazing tolerance and restraint of the American people. Imported Muslim fanatics murdered thousands on 9/11, the threat of homegrown jihad has crystallized, and Islamists abroad continue to slaughter innocents daily. Though Americans could find no lack of excuses to strike out at their Muslim neighbors, almost nobody does — and thankfully so. As such, the annual victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes average between three and four per U.S. state and would have trouble filling a decent-sized jetliner.

Many Americans take a critical view of Islam, but virtually all restrict their negative sentiments to the domain of words and ideas, as civilized human beings should. People are free to have opinions, including anti-Islamic ones, regardless of how Islamists long to muzzle them. Islamists, in turn, are entitled to their own opinions about life in America. But they are not entitled to their own facts.

David J. Rusin is a research fellow at Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.