Canada’s New Blasphemy Laws

Gatestone Institute, by Khadija Khan, March 8, 2017:

  • Although these motions against “Islamophobia” are not legally binding, extremists have already started demanding them as laws.
  • People in hostile societies put their lives at risk by speaking against the majority; meanwhile, shutting out any criticism against hardliner behaviour in the West actually means giving extremists a license to keep on committing atrocities.
  • Motions such as these are how most Muslim societies — and other authoritarian states — were founded: by depriving citizens of the basic right to express a difference of opinion, and worse, on the pretense of “doing good.” The blasphemy laws of Pakistan were introduced on the premise of protecting the sanctity of the people’s religious beliefs, but the laws only ended up meting out public death sentences to innocent and marginalized victims.

A resolution, M-103, seeking to condemn so-called “Islamophobia,” was introduced a few weeks ago in the peaceful country of Canada by Liberal Party MP Iqra Khalid in the House of Commons, sparking a controversy.

A similar motion, labelled M-37, was later tabled in the Ontario provincial legislature by MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers on February 23, 2017, and was passed by the provincial parliament.

M-37, like its predecessor, demanded that lawmakers condemn “all forms of Islamophobia” and reaffirm “support for government efforts, through the Anti-Racism Directorate, to address and prevent systemic racism across government policy, programs and services”.

Although these motions are not legally binding, extremists have already started demanding them as laws.

There are, of course, no comparable motions against “Judeophobia” or “Christianophobia”.

Neither motion M-103 nor motion 37 exactly define “Islamophobia,” leaving that to the imagination of the supposed victim(s).

Hardliners who support this form of censorship, and presumably other restrictions required by Islamic sharia law, aim to blur the line between genuine bigotry and criticism of core problems across the Muslim world, such as the murder of apostates and homosexuals, communal hatred, anti-Semitism, violence against women and minors, female genital mutilation (FGM), child marriage, unequal legal and inheritance rights for women, stoning, flogging and amputation, and social taboos such as honour killings or right to choose a husband for girls or restrict girls’ education.

Those who present these motions claim that “Islamophobia” is rampant across the country, but seem blind to Islamic sharia law’s endorsement of killing homosexuals, violence against women and minors, atrocities such as those enumerated above, and notions of Muslim supremacy across the planet.

These issues are genuine concerns for millions of Muslims as well as human rights defenders, but are never addressed by those apologists, who always try to present these atrocities as perfectly acceptable “cultural norms”.

People in hostile societies put their lives at risk by speaking against the majority; meanwhile, shutting out any criticism against hardliner behaviour in the West actually means giving extremists a license to keep on committing atrocities.

Broadly speaking, in the West, where people have the opportunity to stand up against persecution, Muslim extremists seem determined to sell themselves as victims and to get rid of whatever obstacles contradict a clearly expansionist agenda.

Motion M-103 claimed: “Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam”.

Are those who set forth these resolutions oblivious to the clerics who rally hundreds of thousands across the world — organizations such as Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, CAIR, ISIS, Hezbollah, Al-Shabaab, Al-Qaeda, Taliban and Jamat e Islami, Sipah-e-Muhammad, TehrikNifaz-i-FiqahJafaria, JamatudDawa, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-jhangwi, TehrikNifaz-i-Shariat Muhammadi, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Lashkar-e-Islam, Jamiat-ul-Ansar, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Khuddam-i-Islam, Fatah Al Islam (Lebanon), Ansar Al Sharia in Libya, Jabhat Al Nusra (Al-Nusra Front) in Syria, the Haqqani Network in Pakistan and other offshoots of these jihadi movements?

The sales pitch for M-103 was given a pretty façade of human rights concerns, but actually inside was a veiled endorsement of a Muslim supremacist mentality.

While M-103 asks to recognize the need to curb systematic racism and religious discrimination against Muslims, there are no traces of any systematic hatred or racism against Muslims or any religious groups in Canada.

On the contrary, Canada already has laws to curb any discrimination or abuse against individuals or groups. All that is needed is to enforce those laws already on the books.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Criminal Code, carry progressive laws to handle hate crimes or racism. Section 318, 319(1) and 319(2) are specifically designed to deal with such offenses.

Moreover, criticizing any genuine social concerns about a community or belief system is the democratic right of every citizen in a civilized country.

Motions such as these are how most Muslim societies — and other authoritarian states — were founded: by depriving citizens of the basic right to express a difference of opinion, and worse, on the pretense of “doing good.” The blasphemy laws of Pakistan were introduced on the premise of protecting the sanctity of the people’s religious beliefs, but the laws only ended up meting out public death sentences to innocent and marginalized victims.

Under Muslim blasphemy laws, such as those being slowly presented to Canada, such deeds are punishable by death or life in prison.

Unfortunately, blasphemy laws are often interpreted as a state’s permission to attack, lynch or destroy non-Muslim minorities, while the attackers are regarded as heroes for their crimes.

Victims of these laws also include critics of this barbarism such as Punjab’s Governor Salmaan Taseer, Pakistan’s Minister for Human Rights Shahbaz Bhatti, and often even human rights activists and the victims’ lawyers.

Aren’t we setting up the foundation of such norms in the West on pretense of curbing “Islamophobia”?

For example, a supposedly “infinitesimally small” number of jihadis are capable of shutting the mouths of approximately 200 million people (equivalent to the entire Pakistani population), seemingly forever, by literally killing dissent.

In the last century, the jihadis’ spiritual father, Sayyid Qutb, commissioned Muslims to impose salafist-style Islamic rule on the world by destroying the “infertile West” and eliminating anything non-Muslim.

Qutb’s book, Milestones, would undoubtedly be an eye-opener for those still unaware of what is required of “true” Muslims. The same is true of the writings of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This ideology is clawing its way into very fabric of the West, in places such as Britain, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, America, Australia and France.

It poses an imminent threat to the free world. Free societies will have to pay a heavy price if they choose to ignore the menace of extremism through a policy of appeasement and accommodation.

There is no need for specific laws about “Islamophobia”: it is not even defined. Worse, many extremist clerics also consider as “Islamophobic” any criticism of their jihadism, communal hatred, polygamy and violence against women, minors or possibly anyone else they target.

Canada has always been one of the most tolerant countries in the world; please let us keep it that way.

Khadija Khan is a Pakistan-based journalist and commentator.

HOLTON: Why Is Louisiana’s Media Attacking Efforts To Aid Law Enforcement In Keeping Us Safe Against Terrorism?

The Hayride, by Christopher Holton, March 6, 2017:

In case you haven’t noticed, the global jihadist insurgency has entered a new, more dangerous phase in the past two years.

The number of jihadis and the number of attacks that they have carried out–as well as the number of casualties they have inflicted and the number of countries they operate in–has grown drastically.

The excellent, private IntelCenter organization estimates that the Islamic State has killed 18,000 people in 28 countries since they declared their Caliphate on 29 June 2014.

This includes individual acts of jihad carried out in this country in places like Orlando, Chattanooga, Boston, Garland, San Bernardino, Queens and Philadelphia.

There is no reason to believe that this trend won’t continue. The effort to take down the caliphate was half-hearted at best because it simply wasn’t something President Obama was interested in. He apparently felt that the killing of Osama Bin Laden should have been enough. Never mind that the world has become awash in jihad since then.

Because of the complete lack of leadership on this vital issue, our federal bureaucratized counterterrorism apparatus has not even allowed to study Islamic threat doctrine–the very doctrine that the Islamic State cites repeatedly.

Time and time again we find that the warning signs of the jihadi attackers were missed. We were warned about the Tsarnaev brothers (the Boston bombers) repeatedly by the Russians and the FBI knew that their mosque was founded by a convicted Al Qaeda member, yet they were still able to carry out their attack.

There were warning signs about the San Bernardino jihadis as well. The female, Tafsheen Malik, used a fake address to obtain a visa to enter the U.S. She also gained entry into the U.S. under the horribly flawed federal “Visa Express” program that allowed applicants to bypass the interview in the screening process.

Moreover, DHS whistleblower Phillip Haney has testified before Congress and written in his new book, See Something, Say Nothing, that he had been ordered to cease investigations into Tablighi Jamaat, the notorious Islamist organization that had ties to the San Bernardino mosque.

Then there is the case of Orlando shooter, Omar Mateen, who was twice interviewed by the FBI because he was on the contact list for an American Islamikaze bomber in Syria and because he made “incendiary” remarks to co-workers about jihad. Oh, and his Dad posted pro-Taliban online videos too. He was given the “all-clear,” only to end up massacring 49 innocent Americans.

What all this points to is the vital need for state and local law enforcement to take the lead against jihad inside this country. I promise you, the NYPD does not wait for the FBI to vet suspected terrorists. Other state and local agencies around the country need to take the same approach, albeit with resources that can’t match the NYPD, which is probably the most effective counterterrorism law enforcement organization anywhere in the world.

The fact is, the Feds are unaccountable. They can’t follow up all the leads they have now and very often have a lack of knowledge as to what or who they are dealing with. I have a hunch that the FBI agents who interviewed Omar Mateen probably thought he was creepy at best, but they had nothing to charge him with and they had to go about their business. Complicating matters even more is the fact that both the FBI and DHS have been forbidden from tying Islam to terrorism. That restriction right there makes them ineffective at conducting counterintelligence operations.

State and local cops are not unaccountable. They have deep roots in their communities. If an Omar Mateen is in someone’s precinct and they know he is a known associate of an Islamikaze bomber and made threatening statements about terrorism, they will keep an eye on him way past the initial interview. There won’t be much more important in that precinct once an Omar Mateen comes to the local cops’ attention.

Furthermore, state and local police are not under any restriction to refrain from studying the enemy threat doctrine. If the local sheriff or police chief is bold enough, he will mandate that his intelligence and investigative people get educated about the threat in an objective, unbiased manner–allowing the subject matter to take them where it leads them, rather than starting from the position that there is no connection between Islam and terrorism.

State and local police are now at the tip of the spear in this war. 15 years ago America sent soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines overseas to protect us all from jihad. Today, local law enforcement is being tasked with protecting soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines from Jihad inside our own country. This is a profound shift in this war that has been lost on the overwhelming majority of the American people.

In Garland, Texas, it was a 62-year old motorcycle cop who gunned down the two jihadi attackers who were wielding AK47s.

In Chattanooga, Tennessee, it was the local police who gunned down Mohammad Abdulazeez.

In Boston, it was Boston PD who ran down the Tsarnaev brothers.

In Queens, New York, it was rookie patrolmen who were targeted by and gunned down Zale Thompson.

The San Bernardino shooters were killed by members of the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department.

In Philadelphia, it was a police officer sitting in his patrol car that was targeted by Edward Archer in the name of ISIS.

And, of course, we know that it was the Orlando Police Department who responded to Omar Mateen’s massacre.

By the time DHS and FBI show up, they have to ask permission to cross the crime scene tape. In Marine Corps parlance, by the time the Feds get involved, it’s “right of bang.”

State and local police need to prepare to operate against jihadis “left of bang,” and that means taking their own initiative and not depending solely on our bureaucratized, federal counterterrorism apparatus for training or intelligence about potential bad guys in their jurisdictions.

Fortunately, increasingly, local sheriffs departments around the country have recognized the threat from jihad and have taken the initiative in training their personnel in the strategy and tactics needed to prepare, including studying the enemy threat doctrine as our jihadist enemies themselves teach it.

One such curriculum of training is from an organization called Understanding the Threat (UTT). The leader of this organization is former FBI agent and Force Recon Marine officer John Guandolo. There is no one in America more qualified to conduct training on the threat from jihad than this organization. Mr. Guandolo was decorated by the FBI for establishing the original training program for the Bureau on the Global Islamic Movement, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. Guandolo’s colleague, Chris Gaubatz, is the only known operative to have conducted counterintelligence of HAMAS, when he interned for the Council on American Islamic Relations. That operation is detailed in Paul Sperry’s book, Muslim Mafia.

Recently, UTT has conducted training for several departments and agencies in Louisiana. Their program has come under fire from two out of state organizations with questionable ties and a record of nefarious activity. Louisiana’s media, including the Times-Picayune’s J.R. Ball at the link just above, have repeated the attacks of those organizations.

The first organization is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC). At one time the SPLC may have served a useful purpose, but those times have long since passed. Today, the SPLC uses the term “hate” to silence and intimidate those with whom it disagrees politically.  The SPLC’s abuses of the term “hate” became so bad that in 2014, during the Obama administration, the FBI quit using the SPLC as a hate crimes resource.

The SPLC’s fast and loose use of the term and its blacklisting of those whom it disagrees with has even contributed indirectly to violence when Floyd Lee Corkins attacked the Family Research Council’s headquarters after viewing the SPLC’s irresponsible list of “hate groups.” Corkins shot and wounded a security guard during his attack.

The fact that the media regurgitates SPLC statements and data without question demonstrates the degree to which our free press has become corrupted by ideologues who no longer act as responsible journalists to report the news, but work as advocates for certain viewpoints.

The other organization that has raised objections to UTT’s training program in Louisiana is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a wing of the notorious Muslim Brotherhood here in the United States.

Michael Kunzelman of the Associated Press actually referred to CAIR as a “civil rights group,” again demonstrating the degree to which the media have been infected with corruption.

CAIR’s statement on the training actually included chilling code language used internationally by Islamist organizations to silence free speech. CAIR referred to John Guanadolo as an “Islamophobe.”

The term Islamophobe was made up by the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood organizationwhose founding board included Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual guide for the Muslim Brotherhood for decades.  Qaradawi is also infamous for having been banned from travel to the US, the UK and France for his ties to terror. Moreover, he is particularly notorious for having, as a renowned Shariah scholar, instructed Muslim men on how they are to properly beat their wives and endorsed the barbaric, Shariah practice of female circumcision (known as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

IIIT coined the term Islamophobe with the express purpose of silencing critics of the Global Islamic Movement and to label enemies.

For CAIR to label someone as an Islamophobe is not to be dismissed or taken likely, especially given CAIR’s nefarious activities and those of its members, employees and directors:

  • The FBI suspended all formal contacts with CAIR due to evidence demonstrating a relationship between CAIR and HAMAS, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.
  • In the U.S. v the Holy Land Foundation, the largest successful terrorism financing prosecution in U.S. history, CAIR was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group and was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial.
  • CAIR opened its first office in Washington, D.C. with the help of a grant from the Holy Land Foundation., a charitable organization that was shut down by the US Treasury Department for funding Jihadist terrorist organizations.
  • In 2014, US ally the United Arab Emirates officially designated CAIR as a terrorist organization.
  • In March 2011, Muthanna al-Hanooti, one of CAIR’s directors, was sentenced to a year in federal prison for violating U.S. sanctions against Saddam’s Iraq.
  • In 2006, the co-founder of CAIR’s parent organization, IAP (Islamic Association for Palestine), Sami Al-Arian, was sentenced to 57 months in prison on terrorism charges for financing Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a designated terrorist organization according to the US State Department.
  • In 2004, CAIR-Northern Virginia director Abdurahman Alamoudi pled guilty to terrorism-related financial and conspiracy charges, which resulted in a 23-year federal prison sentence. Alamoudi was a major financier for Al Qaeda. It’s was John Guandolo’s team that took down Alamoudi.
  • In 2009, Ghassan Elashi, who served as a founding board member for CAIR’s regional chapter in Texas, was sentenced to a total of 65 years in prison after being convicted of 10 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization; 11 counts of conspiracy to provide, and the provision of, funds, goods and services to a Specially Designated Terrorist; 10 counts of conspiracy to commit, and the commission of, money laundering; one count of conspiracy to impede and impair the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and two counts of filing a false tax return.
  • Randall Todd (Ismail) Royer, who served as a communications specialist and civil rights coordinator for CAIR, trained with and set up an internet-based newsletter for Lashkar-I-Taiba, an al Qaeda-tied Kashmir organization that is listed on the State Department’s international terror list and was also indicted on charges of conspiring to help al Qaeda and the Taliban battle American troops in Afghanistan and was sentenced to twenty years in prison on April 9, 2004.
  • In September 2003, CAIR’s former Community Affairs Director, Bassem Khafagi, pled guilty to three federal counts of bank and visa fraud and agreed to be deported to Egypt after he had funneled money to activities supporting terrorism and had published material advocating suicide attacks against the United States, illegal activities which took place while he was employed by CAIR.
  • Ann Arbor, Michigan CAIR fundraiser Rabih Haddad was arrested on terrorism-related charges and was deported from the United States due to his work as Executive Director of the Global Relief Foundation, which in October 2002 was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department for financing al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

For most citizens of Louisiana, we can be thankful that Understanding the Threat is training our law enforcement heroes about this threat.

Canada Moves Forward with Anti-Islamophobia Measures

iqra-khalid-640x480

Breitbart, by Thomas D. Williams, Feb. 26, 2017:

The Canadian Parliament is debating a motion urging the government to “condemn Islamophobia” and “quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear.”

Motion 103, or M-103 as it is commonly called, was introduced in the House of Commons by Iqra Khalid, a Liberal Member of Parliament (MP) and a Pakistan-born Muslim Canadian.

Not long after an attack on a Quebec mosque in late January, the motion is now being debated in the House of Commons. It calls on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to undertake a study on what the government could do to reduce or eliminate systemic racism including Islamophobia and to present its findings no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of the motion.

The motion has generated passionate debate between supporters and opponents, and has raised at least five serious points of contention.

  1. The motion is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that anti-Muslim sentiment is growing in Canada

Although M-103 summons the government to “recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear,” its proponents have produced no evidence for the claim that such a public climate is indeed growing.

No statistics were presented to Parliament and no cases of Islamophobia were cited to back up the claim that anti-Muslim violence is on the rise in Canada.

On introducing the motion, Khalid cited strong anti-Muslim sentiment in Canada, alleging that she was “among thousands of Muslims who have been victimized because of hate and fear,” but no further evidence of such victimization was furnished.

  1. The motion fails to identify or define “Islamophobia”

According to Freudian psychology, a phobia is “an overwhelming and unreasonable fear of an object or situation that poses little real danger but provokes anxiety and avoidance.” Properly understood, therefore, a phobia is not just a fear, but an irrational fear that goes far beyond any real possible harm. It is the disproportion between the fear and the danger and the unreasonableness of the dread that characterizes a phobia.

Who will judge what degree of fear is proportionate in this case? Moreover, who will judge which expressions of concern over Islam are motivated by an irrational fear rather than an appropriate prudence?

Conservative MPs have contended that condemning “Islamophobia” without defining it could stifle legitimate debate about controversial issues like sharia law and the niqab.

The problem here is that any discussion of sharia law, the danger of Islamic terrorism or simply the relationship between the Islamic worldview and that of the Judeo-Christian West could easily provoke the accusation of Islamophobia.

Evidence of this can be seen in the way that the other phobia du jour—“homophobia”—is commonly used an as paralyzing insult for anyone who manifests the slightest hesitation to embrace homosexual activity as an unqualified moral good.

  1. The motion threatens to curb free-speech

A number of opponents to M-103 have sustained that the motion threatens free speech by targeting an attitude (“Islamophobia”) rather than a certain sort of illegal behavior. Many have logically deduced that measures aimed at curbing Islamophobia would include pro-Muslim government propaganda encouraging positive views of Islam, along with pressure on individuals not to express negative opinions.

Among Conservative politicians, Brad Trost expressed his fear that the motion would be an instrument of the “thought police in Ottawa.”

Chris Alexander, the former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said that M-103 is “ground zero” for freedom of speech, not just in Canada “but for the world today.”

  1. The motion illogically prioritizes one sort of religious freedom over others

Although M-103 condemns “all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination,” it only mentions one by name: “Islamophobia.” The motion refers to Islamophobia twice, while never mentioning anti-Semitism or the need to combat anti-Christian discrimination—which arguably occurs far more often in Canada than victimization of Muslims.

Critics such as Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch have suggested that the motion is singling out Islam for “special treatment” by mentioning it by name while lumping the rest together under the generic title of “religious discrimination.”

  1. The motion falls into the errors of hate-crime and hate-speech legislation

The introduction of hate legislation has undermined the right order of criminal justice by irrationally elevating the human passion of “hate” above other passions such as pride, anger, lust, envy and a host of other possible motives for malfeasance.

A motion like M-103 replicates this wrong-headed legislation by addressing a state of mind—Islamophobia—rather than illegal behavior. Whether or not the motion translates into law, it creates an atmosphere where certain opinions are considered unlawful and others are prohibited.

In traditional jurisprudence, hate only becomes a criminal problem when one’s behavior contravenes the law. When prosecutors investigate motive and premeditation, they do so only to ascertain guilt and the level of personal responsibility involved in a given act. They do not try to measure the quality of the motive.

The matter of criminal law, moreover, is not internal dispositions but external actions.

These and other arguments would suggest that the best way for government to counteract violence against groups or individuals is not by stifling debate or trying to sway public opinion, but by making it clear that certain behavior will not be tolerated, regardless of one’s motives or intentions.

How the Southern Poverty Law Center Faked an Islamophobia Crisis

spl

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Feb. 21, 2017:

Look out!  It’s another fake Islamophobia crisis.

“Huge Growth in Anti-Muslim Hate Groups During 2016: SPLC Report,” wails NBC News. “Watchdog: Number of anti-Muslim hate groups tripled since 2015,” FOX News bleats. ABC News vomits up this word salad. “Trump cited in report finding increase in US hate groups for 2nd year in a row.”

The SPLC stands for the Southern Poverty Law Center: an organization with slightly less credibility than Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Clown College, and without the academic degree in greasepaint.

And you won’t believe the shameless way the SPLC faked its latest Islamophobia crisis.

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s latest “hate group” sightings claims that the “number of anti-Muslim hate groups increased almost three-fold in 2016.”

That’s a lot of folds.

And there is both bad news and good news from its “Year in Hate and Extremism.”

First the good news.

Casa D’Ice Signs, the sign outside a bar in K-Mart Plaza in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, is no longer listed as a hate group. The sign outside the bar had been listed as a hate group by the SPLC for years. The owner of Casa D’Ice had been known for putting politically incorrect signs outside his bar. So the SPLC listed the “signs” as a hate group. (Even though there was only one sign.) Not the bar. That would have made too much sense.

Since then Casa D’Ice was sold and the SPLC has celebrated the defeat of another hate group. Even if the hate group was just a plastic sign outside a bar.

But the bad news, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, is that anti-Muslim hate groups shot up from only 34 in 2015 to 101 in 2016.

What could possibly account for that growth? Statistical fakery so fake that a Vegas bookie would weep.

President Trump is on the cover of the SPLC’s latest Intelligence Report: a misnomer of a title from an organization whose intelligence gathering led it to list a bar sign as a hate group.

But there’s actually another phenomenon responsible for this startling rise reported by the SPLC.

The SPLC decided to count 45 chapters of Act for America as separate groups.

How do you get a sudden rise from 34 to 101 hate groups? It helps to suddenly add 45 chapters of one group. Act for America isn’t a hate group. It’s also just as obviously not 45 groups.

And it didn’t come into existence last year.

Act for America was only listed as one group in the 2015 list. It shot up to 45 now.

The SPLC this year listed the Los Angeles chapter of Act for America as a separate group. But the chapter has been around for quite a few years.

Furthermore Act for America boasts not 45, but 1,000 chapters across the country. Why list just 45 of them? Look at it from the SPLC’s perspective. Next year, it can add 200 chapters and claim that anti-Muslim hate groups once again tripled. And then it can do the same thing again the year after that.

That way the Southern Poverty Law Center can keep manufacturing an imaginary Islamophobia crisis.

Also added to the list is Altra Firearms: a gun store that ran an ad declaring that it wouldn’t sell firearms to Clinton supporters or Muslims. Like Casa D’Ice, this is another case of the SPLC demonstrating that it has no idea what distinguishes a store whose owner says politically incorrect things from a “group”.

The list has added Bosch Fawstin: an artist who was the target of the first ISIS terror attack in America during the assault on the Draw Mohammed cartoon contest. The SPLC announced that it was adding the Eisner nominated artist to its list of hate groups after he survived the attack.

The SPLC’s actions were obscene.

After the attack, Heidi Beirich, in charge of adding targets to the SPLC’s hate map, announced that she would be adding Bosch to the list because the Center now knows his location.

Indeed the SPLC makes a point of highlighting the locations of likely terrorist targets. And the Southern Poverty Law Center’s map of hate has been used by terrorists before.

Floyd Lee Corkins opened fire at the headquarters of the Family Research Council. The conservative Christian organization had been targeted by Corkins because of its appearance on the SPLC’s list.

“Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups. I found them online,” Corkins later confessed to the FBI.

When Leo Johnson, the building’s African-American manager, attempted to stop Corkins, the SPLC shooter told Johnson that he didn’t like his politics and opened fire. The SPLC gunman had planned to kill everyone in the office, but Johnson’s heroic actions saved their lives. The African-American building manager was forced to undergo painful surgeries because of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate list.

Despite its role in the terror attack, the SPLC continues to target the Family Research Council.

None of the so-called “Anti-Muslim hate groups” listed by the SPLC have shot anyone. The SPLC has.

Bosch Fawstin is a courageous activist. He’s also an individual. As am I. And the SPLC also has me up as a hate group. Other individual bloggers on the list include Atlas Shrugs, Refugee Resettlement Watch, Bare Naked Islam and Citizen Warrior.

6 of the SPLC’s “hate groups” are actually individuals. It’s understandable that the Southern Poverty Law Center is vague on the definition of hate. But you would think that it could figure out the definition of “group.”

No such luck.

The SPLC lists the David Horowitz Freedom Center as a hate group. But then again it also lists the American College of Pediatricians and the Jewish Political Action Committee as hate groups.

It doesn’t take much to be listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

You don’t need to be a group to be listed by the SPLC as a hate group. You don’t even need to have a pulse. Inanimate plastic signs can be listed too.

The rest of the SPLC’s “increase” is padded out with assorted community groups opposed to refugee resettlement, such as Treasure Valley Refugee Watch, and any Christian ministry it doesn’t like.

But there is one barrier to being listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

No amount of overt anti-Semitism from CAIR’s Nihad Awad would ever get the Islamist hate group listed as a hate group. Even CAIR’s flirtation with Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers can’t get it on the hate map. The SPLC collaborated with the Muslim Public Affairs Council despite its anti-Semitism.

Instead the SPLC lists counterterrorism organizations such as the Investigative Project on Terrorism, the Clarion Project and the David Horowitz Freedom Center which point out their terror ties as hate groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is greedy, cynical and dishonest. Its latest ploy to gain headlines by inflating a group it had formerly listed as 1 organization into 45 by listing each chapter separately is the sort of behavior you expect from a lazy college student, not one of the wealthiest organizations in the country. And yet no one in the media will call out the SPLC for its greed, its bigotry and its lies.

The SPLC climbs into bed with extremists and terrorists and it smears counterterrorism organizations. It helps terrorists target their critics. And it solicits money through shameless lies.

It’s easy to indict the SPLC. But every indictment of the SPLC is also an indictment of a Fake News media that repeats its absurd lies without ever checking its facts.

When the media reports that there was a huge rise in anti-Muslim groups because the Southern Poverty Law Center turned 1 group into 45, it proves that it really is in the Fake News business.

Virginia Church Hosts Lecture on “Islamophobia,” Professor Claims It’s Driven By “Imperialism”

todd-green

Jihad Watch, by Andrew Harrod, Jan. 28, 2017:

“I have lots of relationships with Muslims. They have taught me compassion and peace,” stated Luther College Professor Todd Green during a January 22 presentation at McLean, Virginia’s Lewinsville Presbyterian Church (LPC). Here this self-proclaimed “scholar of Islamophobia” and “anti-Islamophobia activist” reiterated his fantasy that interpersonal relationships with Muslims can refute supposed “Islamophobic” prejudices arising from Western sins like imperialism.

Green, author of the 2015 book The Fear of Islam:  An Introduction to Islamophobia in the West, is currently a Franklin Fellow at the United States Department of State, where Green “assesses and analyzes Islamophobia in Europe.” He has had ample opportunity to expound the book’s themes in various appearances in radio (see here, here, and here) and online, as well as public presentations such as at the 2016 Peacestock conference of the leftwing Veterans for Peace. He also writes for left-leaning publications such as the Huffington Post and Sojourners.

Without specific definitions, Green has concluded that “Islamophobia is an irrational fear, hostility, or hatred of Muslims and Islam” and is “one of the most acceptable prejudices in the United States today.” This presents a “cultural racism” in which “Muslims are essentialized; they are treated as a race,” he elaborated at LPC. Nonetheless, he has previously vaguely qualified that critical study of any such posited bigotry “is not an attempt to cut off critical conversations about Islam.”

Green has assessed that “imperialism is one of the main factors driving Islamophobia in the past and in the present,” resulting from historical “imperial tension and imperial competition” between Christians and Muslims. “In the seventh century when Islam came on the scene, it spread very quickly and Islamic empires developed quite quickly,” he has stated, while leaving unmentioned the Islamic supremacist jihad doctrine that propelled such conquests. With shifting power balances between Western and Islamic civilization across the centuries, Islamic empires gave way to the European colonialism that subjugated many Islamic lands.

Westerners colonizing Muslims, Green has argued, realized that “with imperial projects there must be some ‘other’, and this ‘other’ must be demonized and dehumanized in order for the imperial nation to galvanize popular support.” The “neo-imperialism” of rival Cold War superpowers followed European colonialism. Even post-Cold War, “much of U.S. foreign policy is incomprehensible apart from understanding that we are still engaged in the imperial project.”

Casting Muslims as passive victims of Western aggression, Green believes that such stereotypes influence Americans today who “have seen and continue to see Muslims in many parts of the world as obstacles to our imperial ambitions.” In the Huffington Post, he emphasizes the “history of Western interventionism in Muslim-majority contexts, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S. exploitation of energy resources in the Middle East, the legacy of European colonialism.” The oft-debated question “Is ISIS [the Islamic State in Iraq and (Greater) Syria] Islamic?” is merely a “thinly veiled form of Islamophobia intended to heighten our fears of Islam while absolving the U.S. of its own responsibility in contributing to the rise to ISIS.”

“Religion is rarely the driving force behind terrorism,” Green’s article claims, befitting his oft-disproved analysis that socioeconomic disadvantage, not Islamic doctrine, lies behind jihadist violence. At LPC, he described Muslims joining ISIS because of factors like discrimination in Europe or oppression from Middle Eastern dictatorships, just as socioeconomic factors might influence Westerners to join rightwing movements. “White Christians have an empire to hide behind.  Many of these young men joining ISIS don’t.  When you are politically disenfranchised you will sometimes find other ways to find power.”

In identifying “Islamophobia’s” past and present purveyors, Green resorts to well-worn, hackneyed tropes. He embraces the fraudulent Edward Said’s Orientalism thesis that “knowledge about Islam coming from Orientalism was being distorted by the imperial project.” Past Western Islamic studies served not intellectual inquiry, but rather “knowledge for the sake of control” over Muslims.

Green today castigates “professional Islamophobes” supposedly motivated by pure malice, such as Pamela Geller, Daniel Pipes, Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer, and Geert Wilders. “From the time they wake up in the morning to the time they go to bed at night, their job is to figure out ‘how can I better demonize Muslims today.’” While “Islamophobia” often appears among conservatives, it is “more dangerous in the way it manifests itself among those who claim to be liberal,” such as talk show host Bill Maher, Green noted at LPC. He meanwhile makes the common yet baseless claim that “Islamophobia” forms a well-funded “powerful industry,” while the “anti-Islamophobia side does not pay quite as well” for individuals like him.

Contrastingly, in Green’s estimation Islamic belief seemingly can cause no harm, as he rejects “misconceptions” that “sharia law is somehow incompatible with democracy or with the West.” “The overwhelming majority of Muslims” globally “really are trying to practice their religion that helps them and their fellow human beings flourish,” he has argued. At LPC he added that “I hate the language of ‘radical Islamic terrorism’” and its “simplistic understanding that Islam programs people to be violent.”

Islamic rule past and present thus raises few concerns for Green while he condemns the United States for having supported dictators like Iran’s shah. Like many academics, he whitewashes Islam’s often brutal, subjugated “status of dhimmis or protected minorities” for non-Muslims, stating that “for much of the history of Islam Christians and Jews were protected and lived in peace with Muslims.” Today Americans in the Middle East should “be very consistent when it comes to supporting democratic movements, even if that means risking losing an alliance with an autocratic government,” irrespective of such “democratic” results in 1979 Iran and 2011 Egypt.

More often than not, non-Muslims draw Green’s criticism. Writing in Sojourners, he approved of President Barack Obama’s regurgitation of the common canard that the Crusades were unjustified aggression, not a just war defensive response to jihadist conquests. “Obama did his best at the National Prayer Breakfast in February [2015] to address the legacy of violence carried out in the name of Christianity.” Green also has falsely relativized that the “Bible has its fair share of violent texts” along with the Quran, thereby ignoring fundamental differences between violent verses in these two scriptures.

Green’s Huffington Post writings betray a less than stirring defense of free speech against jihadist censorship. Geller and Spencer’s 2015 Muhammad cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, where security guards killed two Muslim assailants, merely exemplified “hate rallies that engage in Muslim-bashing under the pretense of defending freedom of speech.” Reviewing Iran’s 1989 blasphemy death sentence for British writer Salman Rushdie, Green mused that “minorities rarely have possessed the same opportunities to shape public opinion as those with political power or cultural capital.” Therefore, “Rushdie and some of his more outspoken supporters adopted a fairly uncritical approach to freedom of expression, assuming at times that this freedom benefits all members of Western societies equally.”

For Green, individual relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims are the antidote to what he has called a “perfect storm of Islamophobia” in a French television interview. He laments supposedly skewed media representations emphasizing Islam’s violence while “there simply are not enough strong relationships in the West between Muslims who are in the minority and the non-Muslim majority.” As one venue for interfaith outreach, he advocates the Muslim Brotherhood (MB)-derived Muslim Students Association (MSA), which he addressed in 2010 at Minnesota’s St. Cloud State University.

One of Green’s book interviewees, Muslim congressman Keith Ellison, currently under fire for his anti-Israel statements and extremists Islamist affiliations, presents for Green the kind of Muslim people should befriend. “If you have a really jaded, negative view of politicians and think that they are intellectually disengaged, you should have a conversation with Keith Ellison, and you will change your mind,” Green has stated about the Minnesota representative. Accordingly, Green’s wife and fellow leftist, Tabita, has written about how he took Luther College students from their Iowa campus on a field trip to Ellison’s Minneapolis mosque, where the radical imam Siraj Wahaj has been a featured speaker. Tabita also noted that the field trip included a visit to the Minnesota chapter of the Hamas-derived Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) “to learn about their civil rights work.”

Green’s tweets round out his Islamist sympathies. In one, he calls the radical, anti-Semitic Woman’s March on Washington organizer Linda Sarsour a “shining star in the battle against racism and bigotry” and therefore “#ImarchwithLinda.” In another, his CAIR and MSA affiliations apparently make him worry that “[d]esignating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist org. will open the door to witch hunts aimed @ Muslim civil liberties groups.”

Yet even Green recognizes that interfaith relations with Muslims are not without their pitfalls. “You want to see a nonstarter happen,” he has indicated in his various appearances, including at LPC, then introduce the subject of “Palestine” between Jews and Muslims. Before tackling such hot topics, he recommends that interfaith groups undertake noncontroversial community projects like Habitat for Humanity homebuilding; “I tend to prefer more organic relationships to evolve,” he has stated. Apparently then, Jewish legal legend Alan Dershowitz should build a house with Ellison before deciding to leave the Democratic Party if he becomes the Democratic National Committee chairman.

Reality belies Green’s “getting to know you” thesis in which individual relationships with Muslims dispel reservations towards Islam that actually come from the faith’s hard facts, not imagined prejudice. Numerous Christians from Muslim-majority countries have impressed upon this author Islam’s oppressive nature towards non-Muslims, even though these individuals lack no opportunity to meet Muslims as Green bemoans in the United States. Likewise Europe’s significantly larger Muslim populations, recently increased by an influx of “refugees,” have done little to improve Islam’s popularity.

The arguments of Green, who by self-admission is by training a student of American and European religious history, not Islamic studies, might impress his fellow leftists as indicated by his largely positive reception at LPC. Paralleling the Obama Administration’s State Department, LPC has made an appeal to “Actively Support the Boycott of Products Made in Israeli Settlements” and is pro-LGBT. Yet individuals like James Lafferty, head of Christians Against Radical Islam (CARI), indicated during audience questions why skepticism is warranted. He recalled a local presentation 25 years ago by Anwar al-Awlaki, an imam once feted as a Muslim “moderate” and later killed in Yemen as an Al Qaeda supporter by a 2011 American drone strike. “He said many times exactly the same words I have heard tonight,” Lafferty noted.

The Anti-Semitic Islamophobia Hoax

boschYou can’t fight anti-Semitism without exposing Islamophobia as a lie.

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield. January 10, 2017:

Fighting Islamophobia is trendy. But it also often becomes a means of enabling and expressing hatred toward others. Especially Jews. It doesn’t take much digging into campaigns against Islamophobia to find the anti-Semitism lurking underneath the bright lights and polished logos.

The Ford Foundation, which in its time had played a key role in the anti-Semitic Durban hatefest, hosted a forum titled, “Confronting Islamophobia in America Today.” Participants included Linda Sarsour, who had promoted the anti-Semitic Muslim practice of throwing rocks at Jews and appeared at a rally for a pro-Hezbollah organization, along with Imam Talib Abdur-Rashid, who had defended Ahmadinejad’s call for destroying Israel and described such a proposed atrocity as a sentiment born of “legitimate anger.”

Why was the Ford Foundation privileging the persecution fantasies of Islamist bigots who believe that plotting the genocide of millions of Jews is somehow rooted in “legitimate anger”?

The loudest voices inveighing against Islamophobia often justify Islamic terrorism, explicitly or implicitly, even while they whine that being associated with Islamic terrorism is a form of Islamophobia. Indeed the campaign against Islamophobia has, among its agendas, the legitimization of Islamic terrorism.

If Islamic terrorism, and its underlying supremacist hatred of Jews, can’t be discussed, then it also can’t be condemned. And, in a perverse twist, Islamic terrorists then become the victims of Islamophobia.

The Florida Center for Investigative Reporting has been fundraising aggressively for its “Islamophobia Project”. The FCIR is the work of Trevor Aaronson who had attempted to dismiss anti-Semitic Muslim terror plots against synagogues as an FBI conspiracy.

The FCIR’s Islamophobia Project is run by Trevor and Roqayah Chamseddine.

Roqayah has written for Mondoweiss, an anti-Semitic website which has published Holocaust deniers and runs articles with titles like, “Liberals like to deceive themselves about Jewish power.”

She has written at Electronic Intifada that the attackers would “smash the settler state” and destroy the “vast Zionist settler-colonial project, i.e. Israel”. She has defended Islamic terrorism against Jews, writing that the, “choice of what methods of resistance are used, be it armed or unarmed, are to be left entirely up to those occupied.”

At Mondoweiss, Roqayah Chamseddine also expressed support for Tarek Mehanna, who had been convicted of providing material support to Al Qaeda, and praised the Islamic terrorists of Hezbollah.

Roqayah praised Mehanna’s “powerful statement” in which the Al Qaeda supporter describes how he watched on “September 11th as a group of people felt driven to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings from their outrage at the deaths of these children”.

This is what the face of the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting’s Islamophobia Project looks like.

Despite this, the Islamophobia Project anticipates a grant from the Knight Foundation to fund its work. And the Islamophobia Project already promotes JVP’s so-called Network Against Islamophobia.

The Network Against Islamophobia and its “No to Islamophobia” events are actually designed to promote the JVP hate group. JVP or Jewish Voice for Peace consists of former Jews recruited to defend the Islamic war against the Jewish State. It is telling that “fighting Islamophobia” requires attacking Jews.

JVP has co-sponsored rallies featuring support for Hamas and its leader gave an interview to a Holocaust denial website. After outrage grew over this latest JVP act of hate, the hate group claimed that the interview had been obtained under “false pretenses”. Its bigots even disrupted a New York City Council memorialization of the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

The “No to Islamophobia” events attacked and appropriated the Jewish celebration of Chanukah to spew hatred against the Jewish State. Instead of criticizing this ugly outpouring of bigotry to fight “Islamophobia”, the mainstream media wrote up glowing reports of the hate group’s anti-Semitic antics.

“No to Islamophobia” was interlinked with various Islamist hate groups including American Muslims for Palestine, a group with Hamas links that celebrated a murderer of Jews, and CAIR, which had invited a Holocaust denier to its conferences. Islamists have a history of awkwardly using fake Jewish allies like JVP in its campaigns to spread anti-Semitism and muzzle any conversation about Islamic terrorism.

A JVP protest against the 9/11 Museum featured a handful of elderly leftist radicals and Muslim women in burkas and young girls in hijabs holding up signs reading, “Jews Say No to Islamophobia”.

Not only was there no Islamophobia, but there were Islamists appropriating Jewish identity to protect the Islamic supremacism that is killing Jews, along with Christians, Yazidis and countless others.

There has recently been some debate over the intersection between Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. And there are explicitly anti-Semitic interpretations of this intersection by Islamists and their allies.

A familiar defense by Muslims accused of hating Jews is to argue that they are also “Semites”.  Some have even urged appropriating the term to refer to Islamophobia. This isn’t a denial of the accusation; it’s a shameless semantic move to eliminate the ability by Jews to call out Muslim anti-Semitism.

The more mainstream approach is to insist that Muslims are the “New Jews” on account of being the most persecuted minority. But even the recently “goosed” hate crimes statistics put the lie to that.

The rhetoric of Islamophobia inevitably trends toward colonialist messages, appropriating and displacing the identities and cultures of the groups persecuted by Islam. Mohammed founded Islam as a religion of colonialism. The Ummah model fosters an Islamic globalization in which Saudi, Iranian and Qatari money are used to consolidate a worldwide network of former colonies into a proposed Caliphate.

ISIS is a brute force derivative of a far more sophisticated global industry of Islamic colonialism.

Jews have always been the leading edge of resistance to Islamic colonialism. Mohammed’s religious colonialism appropriated Judaism and then sought to legitimize it by eliminating the Jews.

Modern Islamists continue to use the same Mohammedan anti-Semitic rhetoric internally; descriptions of Jews as “pigs and apes” or the “killers of prophets” abound in the literature and speeches of both “moderate” and “extremist” groups along with the infamous genocidal Hadith which claims that the Day of Judgement will not come until the Muslims exterminate the Jews.

But externally, Islamists have deployed a sophisticated vocabulary of political victimhood centered on the use of Islamophobia as a shield to silence criticism of their supremacist bigotry and violence.

The greatest victims of the Islamophobia narrative are the targets of Islamic violence.

Historically some of the greatest victims of Islamic supremacism, from Mohammed’s demand that the Jews and Christians be ethnically cleansed from the Arabian Peninsula to the last century of Islamic persecution with everything from pogroms with knives to sophisticated bombs, have been the Jews.

And yet to criticize Mohammed’s violence is “Islamophobic”. And the FBI’s effort to stop Muslim terror plots against Jewish synagogues is also somehow rooted in Islamophobia. Needless to say, Israel’s refusal to allow its population to be exterminated by Muslim colonialism is also Islamophobic.

Jews are the only surviving minority group in the region with their own independent state. The latest calls by the Islamic colonial project for its destruction come under the guise of fighting Islamophobia.

The Islamophobia hoax is not merely a denial of anti-Semitism. It enables anti-Semitism. The biggest proponents of the hoax, such as Hatem Bazian, have rich histories of persecuting and hating Jews.

Some Jewish organizations have come to believe that they ought to be fighting both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. But that is as impossible as aiding both the perpetrators of crime and their victims. Muslim Anti-Semitism is enabled, empowered and protected by the Islamophobia narrative. The only way to fight back is to expose Islamophobia as the lie that Islamist bigots use to shield their bigotry.

Tucker Carlson fact-checks Muslim professor on jihadist vs. white supremacist terror attacks in the U.S.

screen-shot-tuckerTwitchy, December 1, 2016:

Georgetown professor Engy Abdelkader was on with Tucker Carlson Wednesday night to discuss Islamophobia and how it relates to terror attacks in the U.S., with Carlson delivering another impressive performance.

Specifically, Abdelkader tried to claim that white supremacists were a greater threat to Americans, with Carlson responding, “that’s just not true … there haven’t been 100 Americans killed in the last 8 years, 350 wounded from right wing extremist  in the United States… and if you claim it is, I ask you to cite your source.”

Check it out:

No wonder Carlson’s ratings are through the roof. He calmly debates this woman with facts and wins the day.

***

Robert Spencer lays out the facts:

Tucker Carlson does a good job here calling out Georgetown University professor Engy Abdelkader on her deflection, dissembling, and dishonesty, but he does let one massive lie go by: that the FBI has said that “white supremacist groups” are more of a terror threat than Islamic jihadists. The FBI is not actually the source of this claim. It actually comes from the George Soros-funded New America Foundation, which back in June 2015 published a study that purported to demonstrate that “right-wing extremists” and “white supremacists” were a larger threat to the U.S. than Islamic jihadis. But the study was obviously skewed, as it was based on the number of those killed by jihadis and by right-wing extremists since September 12, 2001, leaving  out 9/11. The study also ignored the many, many foiled jihad plots, and the fact that jihadis are part of an international movement that has killed many thousands of people, while right-wingers and white supremacists are not. It stated that right-wing extremists had killed 48 people from September 12, 2001 to June 2015, while Islamic jihadists had killed only 26 people in the U.S. in that span. If 9/11 had been added, the tally would have been 3,032 killed by Islamic jihadists and 48 by purported right-wing extremists.

And even by the New America Foundation’s rules counting the Orlando jihad massacre, which took place after the study was concluded, but leaving out 9/11 as the NAF study did, the death toll now stands at 76 killed by Islamic jihadis, and 48 by purported right-wing extremists (I repeat “purported” because to get to its count of 48, the NAF counted as “right-wing” attacks killings that were perpetrated by people who were obviously deranged psychopaths devoid of any ideology).

Abdelkader also claims that Muslims routinely aid law enforcement in apprehending jihad terrorists. She didn’t mention that A California chapter of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) distributed a poster telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI, and a Florida chapter distributed pamphlets with the same message.

So this Georgetown University professor — a university, by the way, that receives millions from Saudi Arabia — is making wholly false claims.

 

The Ohio State Terrorist Saw Himself as a Victim of Islamophobia

Abdul Razak Ali Artan in his profile in the Lantern student newspaper (Photo: Kevin Stankiewicz/The Lantern/via Reuters)

Abdul Razak Ali Artan in his profile in the Lantern student newspaper (Photo: Kevin Stankiewicz/The Lantern/via Reuters)

National Review, by Ben Shapiro, November 30, 2016:

On August 25, 2016, the Lantern, the student newspaper for Ohio State University, published an interview with a young Somali Muslim refugee, Abdul Razak Ali Artan. “I just transferred from Columbus State,” he told the Lantern. “I wanted to pray in the open, but I was scared with everything going on in the media. I’m a Muslim, it’s not what the media portrays me to be. If people look at me, a Muslim praying, I don’t know what they’re going to think, what’s going to happen. But, I don’t blame them. It’s the media that put that picture in their heads.” Artan had only immigrated permanently to the United States in 2014, after living seven years in Pakistan.

On November 28, Artan allegedly rammed his car into a group of innocents, then leaped out of the car and began hacking at them with a butcher’s knife, injuring eleven people, including one critically, before being shot by an Ohio State University police officer. In the moments immediately before that, Artan wrote on his Facebook page that he had hit a “boiling point,” referred to “lone wolf attacks,” and cited Anwar al-Awlaki, the terror cleric killed by the Obama administration in a drone strike. More specifically, he wrote, “I am sick and tired of seeing [Muslims] killed & tortured EVERYWHERE. . . .I can’t take it anymore . . . America! Stop interfering with other countries . . . [if] you want us Muslims to stop carrying [out] lone wolf attacks. . . . Let me ask you this question if the Muhammed peace and blessings upon him and his Sanaba were here today wouldn’t the western media call them terrorists? To conclude by Allah, I am willing to use a billion infidels in retribution.” Just last week, ISIS called on terrorists everywhere to participate in lone-wolf attacks.

This means that one of two things is true: Either Artan was radicalized between his complaints about Islamophobia in August and November, a span of three months or so; or he was a radical when he gave that statement to the Lantern, and merely took the final steps over the last three months.

The latter story is certainly more plausible. If it’s correct, that means that Artan, like other terrorists, used the cover of Islamophobia as a form of projection — Artan actually hated the West and that hatred drove him to murder. In order to justify violence against others, people generally have to consider themselves victims. It’s difficult to see how a refugee like Artan could consider himself a victim of the land that took him in — a land so welcoming that he could pray openly on campus without even the mildest consequence — but clearly he did. To do so meant building a story about American nastiness that could justify his actions. That’s why the leftist media consistently jumps to a perverse narrative by which every terror attack becomes the font of the next terror attack — terrorists are only victims of Western society, and the proof of that is their terrorism. If they weren’t victims, why would they kill innocents? This cyclical thought process works this way: claim Islamophobia as a rationale for terrorist backlash, then use every sign of backlash against terrorism to reinforce the Islamophobia narrative. This is the Left’s self-fulfilling prophecy of hatred.

The Islamophobia narrative can also be used as cover for actual radicalization. By driving Americans away from asking hard questions about the impact of radical Islam — by instead mouthing platitudes about Islam as a religion of peace and foreign-funded mosques as teaching institutions for that beautiful philosophy — leftists allow radicalization to proceed apace.

RELATED: The Victim Mentality Kills

That’s why radical groups and philosophies can masquerade as mainstream ones — too many Americans have been cowed into silence with calls of “Islamophobia.” This week, Twitter granted verification to Ikhwan Web, the Muslim Brotherhood’s “official” English-speaking feed. As Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) put it, “Verifying the Muslim Brotherhood’s Twitter feed helps further their narrative of civilization-Jihad. This maneuver makes the Brotherhood seem like a legitimate group while providing them cover to spread their radical version of Islam.” Meanwhile, Muslim Brotherhood–associated groups such as the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) continue to have credibility conferred on them by the White House. According to Fox News, CAIR “has held hundreds of meetings with White House officials on a wide variety of community issues and has sought to present itself as a mainstream Muslim organization.” In less radical Muslim lands, governments have no problem calling CAIR what it is: the United Arab Emirates has designated it a terrorist organization.

But in the West, fears of appearing Islamophobic prohibit such practice. They also inhibit Westerners from taking notice of potential terrorist activity. Omar Mateen, the Muslim terrorist who shot up a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., was reported by a coworker for racist and homophobic comments; management ignored it. Before the San Bernardino terrorist attack, a man working near the couple who perpetrated it said, according to a local news report, that “he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people.” In today’s America, does anyone really want to be accused of Islamophobia?

Focus on Islamophobia — and the perception of victimhood it creates — is both a necessary precondition for terrorist action and a cover for it. There’s no excuse for targeting innocent Muslims, or lumping all Muslims together under some sort of broad “terrorist” rubric. But no one with real concerns about radical Islam should be cowed into submission by the Islamophobia slur.

— Ben Shapiro is the editor in chief of the Daily Wire.

SPLC Calls on Trump to Denounce ‘Racism and Bigotry’

as000016517-300Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, November 28, 2016:

The hard-Left money-making, propaganda and incitement machine known as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is planning to hold a press conference on Tuesday, “calling on president-elect Donald Trump to immediately and forcefully publicly denounce racism and bigotry and to call on Americans to stop all acts of hate.” Trump, the SPLC claims, has given rise to a sharp spike in hate crimes against Muslims – which would be terrible, if it weren’t fictional.

The FBI hate crimes statistics for 2015 are out, and the establishment propaganda media is using them to create the impression of some massive increase of Trump-inspired violent “Islamophobia” in America:

“FBI: Hate crimes spike, most sharply against Muslims” — CNN

“U.S. Hate Crimes Surge 6%, Fueled by Attacks on Muslims” — New York Times

“FBI: Hate Crimes Against Muslims up by 67 Percent in 2015” — Associated Press

“FBI: Hate crimes against Muslims up by 67 percent in 2015” — CBS News

“FBI reports rise in hate crimes, with biggest spike against Muslims” — The Week

“FBI reports hate crimes against Muslims surged by 67% in 2015” — The Guardian

In reality, however, as in past years, anti-Semitic hate crimes are over two times more common than hate crimes against Muslims — yet get nothing close to the same media attention.

Also, this much-touted 67% increase in anti-Muslim hate crimes brings the total to 257. Every authentic hate crime is reprehensible and the perpetrators should be prosecuted, but 257 hate crimes in a year in a country of 318 million doesn’t really seem like the wave of “Islamophobic hate crime” of media myth. Anti-Muslim hate crimes are less than one in a million. That’s a fine demonstration of the decency of Americans — but that doesn’t interest the establishment media.

It is likewise important to know how the FBI compiles its statistics about “anti-Muslim hate crimes” – statistics that the SPLC is likely to cite on Tuesday. Does it remove incidents that turned out to have been faked by Muslims to further victimhood propaganda? The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslims have on many occasions not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques.

Last week a Muslim student at the University of Louisiana Lafayette garnered international headlines when she charged that Trump supporters had attacked her, robbed her, and tore off her and hijab. The only problem? She made up the story.

There are many such instances. A New Jersey Muslim was found guilty of murder that he tried to portray as an “Islamophobic” attack, and in 2014 in California, a Muslim was found guilty of killing his wife, after first blaming her murder on “Islamophobia.”

The New York Daily News reported this one not long ago:

[A] woman who told cops she was called a terrorist and slashed on her cheek in lower Manhattan on Thursday later admitted she made up the story, police said early Friday. The woman, who wore a headscarf, told authorities a blade-wielding wacko sliced open her face as she left a Manhattan cosmetology school, police sources said.

Recently in Britain, the murder of a popular imam was spread far and wide as another “Islamophobic hate crime” — until his killer also was found to be a Muslim. And why had another Muslim murdered him? The Mirror reported that the imam “was targeted because he had made efforts to turn youngsters away from radical Islam.”

There is much, much more in this vein. According to The Detroit News, a Muslim woman, Saida Chatti, cooked up this one:

[Chatti was] charged with making a false police report after she allegedly fabricated a plot to blow up Dearborn Fordson High School to retaliate against the November terrorist attacks in Paris … Police say Chatti called Dearborn investigators Nov. 19, six days after Islamic extremists killed 130 people in Paris.

And similarly in Britain:

[A Muslim woman was] fined for lying to police about being attacked for wearing a hijab. The 18-year-old student, known only as Miss Choudhury, said she was violently shoved from behind and punched in the face by a man in Birmingham city centre 10 days after the atrocities in the French capital on November 13.

In light of all this, it is entirely reasonable to be suspicious of the claims of Muslim activist Rashid Dar, who claimed in late September that he was punched in the throat while walking in Washington, D.C., dressed in traditional Islamic attire. What a coincidence! Of all the many, many people wearing traditional Muslim attire in Washington, the one that this violent Islamophobe decided to punch randomly in the throat was a longtime Muslim activist, an employee of the pro-Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar-funded Brookings Institution, previously active at the University of Wisconsin-Madison with the Muslim Students Association, a Muslim Brotherhood organization.

This is the atmosphere of deception in which the SPLC’s press conference will take place Tuesday. In today’s politically correct environment, hate crimes are political capital. They foster the impression that resistance to Islamic terrorism equals hatred of Muslims, and results in the victimization of innocent people. The SPLC and Hamas-linked CAIR want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they’re the currency they use to buy power and influence in our victimhood-oriented society, and to deflect attention away from jihad terror and onto Muslims as putative victims. That’s the ultimate message of the SPLC’s press conference: want power and influence? Be a victim!

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Also see:

Shariah Marches on in Florida and New York

ken-russellAmerican Thinker, by Michael Epstein, October 25, 2016:

On Friday, October 21st, the Miami, FL, Commission; the Monroe County, NY, Legislature; the Rochester, NY, Board of Education; and the Rochester, NY, City Council announced proclamations condemning hate speech against Muslims.  These proclamations define neither hate speech nor the person or persons who will decide what constitutes hate speech.  Far from benign calls to let peaceful Muslims go about their lives and prayers in peace, these proclamations represent a step towards elevating Shariah (Islamic law) over the Frist Amendment.

Why do I make this claim?  Backtrack to 2012 and the aftermath of Benghazi, when President Obama told the UN, “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”  The subtext of this statement was lost amidst several nods by Obama to the First Amendment later in his speech.  The subtext was this: slander in Shariah is not telling lies that hurt someone’s reputation; rather, slander in Shariah is telling a truth or a lie which someone doesn’t want to be told.  Slander in Shariah is thus defined by what the potentially aggrieved party wants or doesn’t want to hear, not by evidence.

For evidence of this, see Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.  On page 730 of the English translation of this law manual – – which has been endorsed by the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Al-Azhar University, the premier authority in Sunni Islam – – slander is defined as follows: “to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike, whether about his body, religion, everyday life, self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban, garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning, cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him.”

Also consider the authentic hadith (report on the words and/or behaviors of Muhammad, the founder of Islam) from Sunan Abu Dawud #4856: “The Prophet was asked: ‘Apostle of Allah!  What is slander?’  He replied: ‘It is saying something about your brother which he would dislike.’  He was asked again: ‘Tell me how the matter stands if what I say about my brother is true.’  He replied: ‘If what you say of him is true, you have slandered him, and if what you say of him is not true, you have reviled him.”

Why is this important?

Let’s conduct a First Amendment test.  In the following lines, I am going to make several statements about Islam.  Making these statements without interference from the government is my First Amendment right.  Indeed, I have the right to make these statements without providing support for them, but I’m going to provide the support just the same – because my definition of slander is the definition used in the West, not the Shariah definition.  I will presume that the former still applies here in the US.  The test is this: will I be condemned?  Will the thought police show up at my door, as they’re already doing in other purportedly free countries like the UK and India under similar circumstances?

The potentially “slanderous” statements: Muhammad married a six-year old girl named Aisha and consummated the so-called marriage – meaning as far as I’m concerned that he raped her – when she was nine and he was 54.  There is ample documentation for this in Islamic sources.  Consider for instance this authentic hadith from Bukhari 7.62.88: “The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old….”  There are no authoritative Muslim sources that dispute this.

Slander, continued: If it were a simple matter of anachronism, this wouldn’t be such a big deal.  That was a long time ago.  Lots of people did that, and so forth.  The problem is not that the founder of Islam was a pedophile and rapist 1,400 years ago.  The problem is that Muhammad’s example is normative for Muslims, today and forever.  To understand why Muhammad is normative for Muslims today, consider as one example Qur’an 33:21: “We have indeed in the apostle of God a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in God and the Final Day, and who engages much in the praise of God” (translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, a Muslim).  To understand why this will be so forever, consider this: Muslims believe the Qur’an is a literal copy of a book residing with Allah in Paradise since the beginning of time, immutable.

I’ll offer just a bit more slander, as defined under Shariah: Pedophilia is rampant in the Muslim world, evidence of the immutability of Muhammad’s example.  This is why Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini lowered the marriageable age to nine when he took power in 1979 and called marriage to prepubescent girls a “divine blessing.”   This is why Iraqi ‘Justice’ Minister Hassan al-Shimmari proposed in 2014 to lower the marriageable age to nine.   This is why so many Afghani girls are married off and drop out of elementary school.  This is why Saudi cleric Salih bin Fawzan issued a fatwa in 2011 against having any age minimum for marriage, the only requirement being that girls “are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men.”  This is why the former leader of the Orlando office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Ahmad Saleem, tried to have sex with a 12-year-old girl in 2015.

Although I have no proof, I suspect that Saleem’s colleagues in CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial a few years back, are behind the proclamation process in Miami and Western New York State.  It’s also a safe bet that more such proclamations will be forthcoming soon, courtesy of CAIR and clueless, complicit, and/or scared politicians.  Perhaps politicians are clueless because CAIR is hiding its attacks on the First Amendment with side-by-side condemnations of violence against peaceful, innocent Muslims, which violence no decent person would condone.

I suspect there’s a fair bit of fear as well.  According to the ABC report on Miami’s proclamation, Miami Commission Vice Chair Ken Russell said the proclamation is “not about courage as a politician, it’s simply heartfelt empathy for someone’s freedom to express their religion and not be persecuted for it.  And to recognize it as a religion of love.”  Russell and I agree on one thing: these resolutions are not about courage as a politician.

In the ABC Local 10 News report, another Florida CAIR official, Wilfredo Ruiz, said, “Resolutions like this really help foster a better environment, where the contributions of this [sic] many Muslims that have served and keep on serving our nation are protected, and we are embraced as another part of the American fabric.”  Memo to Ruiz: promoting Shariah above the Constitution is not a good way to get non-Muslim Americans to embrace Muslims as part of the American fabric.

I’ll wrap up with a question for the politicians who were lulled into issuing these proclamations: Do you condemn me for stating facts?  Do you condemn me for stating that I hate the fact that Islam promotes pedophilia?  I slandered the prophet of Islam, according to the definition of Shariah.  My respect is not for Shariah, but for the First Amendment.  Is yours?

Virginia: Hamas-linked CAIR enraged that sheriff’s office hosting seminar on jihad threat

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, October 25, 2016:

This vicious little hit piece is a textbook example of how the bought-and-paid-for establishment propaganda media defames freedom fighters and mainstreams allies and enablers of jihad terrorists. Much more below.

nihad-awad-corey-saylor

“CIA Director A ‘Secret Muslim’? Anti-Islam Conspiracy-Theorist Group Set To Speak At Virginia Law Enforcement Event,” by Jason Le Miere, International Business Times, October 25, 2016:

The Muslim community has reacted with anger after the sheriff’s office of Greene County, Virginia, announced plans to host a seminar on the alleged threat posed by Muslims. The event, scheduled for Nov. 5, will also feature a representative of a group led by former FBI agent and conspiracy theorist John Guandolo who has claimed that CIA Director John Brennan is a “secret Muslim” who has acted as an agent for the Saudi Arabian government.

IBT “journalist” Jason La Miere presents Guandolo’s charge that Brennan is a Muslim as if it were self-evidently false, the raving of a “conspiracy theorist.” On what basis? Has Brennan ever denied being a Muslim? No. Does Guandolo have any basis for saying so? He says it was widely known when he was in the FBI that Brennan had converted while serving in Saudi Arabia. Is that inherently implausible? No. Is it widely known that there is a top intelligence official in the Obama Administration’s CIA who has converted to Islam? Yes. It was reported in none other than the Washington Post in 2012. Why couldn’t it be Brennan? The movie Zero Dark Thirty about the killing of Osama bin Laden, for which the moviemakers gained access to classified material (the Obama administration was criticized for making it available to them) featured a top counter-terror official who strongly resembled Brennan and was shown performing Muslim prayers. Were the filmmakers hinting at something they knew? Did La Miere speak to Brennan? If he did, he doesn’t mention it in the article. What is much more likely is that La Miere didn’t speak to Brennan, and has no idea whether or not he is a Muslim, but since Brennan hasn’t said anything one way or the other about the charge, he uses it to portray Guandolo as a “conspiracy theorist.” (You can see the video of my interview with Guandolo, in which he discusses this charge, here.)

Greene County Sheriff Steven Smith posted on Facebook this past weekend that his office would be sponsoring a seminar for residents titled “Understanding the Threat, a very interesting and informative class on the Muslim religion.”

Following a backlash, Smith has since apologized for the wording of the original post and changed the title of the seminar to “Understanding the Jihadi Threat.”

“It’s not to say all Muslims are bad,” Smith told local station CBS19. “We’re not saying that at all and when the post first came out, I apologize for the way it was worded, it didn’t have Jihad in there, it does now. People that know me here in Greene County know I’m not like that. It’s just an educational tool.”

On Tuesday, Smith held an impromptu poll on his Facebook page asking the residents of Greene County to decide whether the event should still go ahead. Just a few minutes latest he wrote, “The seminar is on.”…

But the proposed presence of Guandolo’s group, as well as Suzanne Shattuck, a local activist who has called for the deportation of all Muslims who are “Sharia-adherent,” has drawn condemnation from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization.

In a letter to Smith, CAIR Department to Monitor and Combat Islamophobia Director Corey Taylor [sic!] called for the sheriff’s office to drop the seminar.

The hapless lackey La Miere can’t even get the names of his masters right. It’s Saylor, not Taylor. No need to thank me, Corey.

“Everyone, even anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bigots, have the First Amendment right to spew their hatred and conspiracy theories, but that bigotry should not have the implicit endorsement of a law enforcement agency,” the letter read. “Let these individuals pay for their own private speaking venue and be ignored, as they deserve.”

“The sponsorship of this event by the sheriff’s office sends the message to members of the local Muslim community that they may not be protected against the growing number of hate incidents targeting Muslims nationwide due to rising Islamophobia.”

The objective of this hateful and hysterical rhetoric is to stigmatize and demonize any honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, and to promote a spurious association between such a discussion and supposed “hate incidents targeting Muslims,” although no connection has ever been established. The obvious goal is to make it impossible to examine the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists, which would allow them to advance unhindered and unopposed.

The United States, which is home to 3.3 million Muslims, has in recent months seen anti-Muslim hate crimes rise to their highest levels since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

La Miere’s link goes to a New York Times story; here is Hugh Fitzgerald’s surgical evisceration of that story.

Guandolo, who has also stated that Muslims “do not have a First Amendment right to do anything,” resigned from the FBI in 2008 ahead of an investigation for misconduct. Since then, he has toured the country speaking to citizens and at anti-terrorism training seminars given to law enforcement agencies.

Last week he also spoke at a high school in northern Minnesota. When CAIR similarly protested his appearance, Guandolo alleged the organization has ties to Palestinian militant group Hamas.

“Guandolo alleged” — as if he made it up. In reality, the FBI and the Justice Department have affirmed CAIR’s ties to Hamas. But La Miere either doesn’t know that or doesn’t care. He has, of course, no business calling himself a “journalist” or working for something that claims to be a news outlet. But these days, he is just another cog in the Soros-funded hard-Left propaganda machine.

Silencing Opponents Through Accusations of McCarthyism or “Islamophobia”

blasphemy

This tactic of accusing those concerned about threats to freedom of being themselves threats to freedom ought to sound alarm bells whenever it is tried.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, October 14 2016:

One can see some similarities between the Cold War accusations of McCarthyism and false claims of Islamophobia today.  Then as now, it is possible to stifle the voices of those concerned about real threats to Western freedoms by claiming that those voices are themselves enemies of Western freedoms.   This is not wholly a partisan issue:  A Dutch woman with a leftist background, Machteld Zee, is among those sounding the alarm.  Zee has witnessed first-hand Sharia courts in the UK, the UK’s Independent states:

Machteld Zee, a legal scholar at Leiden University in the Netherlands, secured extraordinary access to the secretive courts, attending 15 hours of hearings at the Islamic Sharia Council in Leyton, east London, and the Birmingham Central Mosque Sharia. She was able to scrutinise more than a dozen cases, and interview an array of sharia experts including nine qadis – Islamic judges.

Some of the disturbing observations against women Zee noticed include:

A case where a woman who claimed to be married to a physically and verbally abusive man is told by a “laughing” judge: “Why did you marry such a person?”

A woman “ready to burst into tears” is sent away without an answer after saying that her husband took out a loan in her name on the day they married and is denying her a divorce until she gives him £10,000.

A married couple asking for advice on whether the woman had been religiously divorced from her former husband were told “the secular divorce counts as nothing”.

Is that the kind of justice those in the UK want for their women?  Islamic law and Western law are incompatible at the core – for instance, how women are routinely treated as inferior to men (Sahih Bukhari 1.6.301).  Zee exposes how some individuals are letting this Islamization to take place, Breitbart reports:

Interviewing the political scientist, Dutch journalist Wierd Duk noted that in Holy Identities Zee argues Islamic fundamentalists who share the Saudi regime’s goal of Islamisation are being helped by “useful infidels” — non-Muslim intellectuals, politicians, and opinion-shapers who don’t want to cause offence.

Zee replied: “Yes, leading multiculturalists actually believe that Muslims should be shielded from criticism because it would inflict psychological harm. Although there are many Muslims who find this view idiotic, others use it to call those who criticise Islam ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’.”

We have been seeing that tactic in play throughout Europe, and as a result Muslim immigrant communities have overwhelmingly embraced leftist political parties. For example, an article from The Economist reveals how “One study in France found that 93% of Muslims voted for the Socialist, François Hollande, in the 2012 presidential election.” However, since many Muslims feel leftist parties aren’t satisfying their Muslim constituents enough, Muslim political parties are starting to emerge. We are seeing this phenomenon occur in the Netherlands with the Denk party breaking off from the Dutch Labour party. The two former Labour party members to start Denk are Tunahan Kuzu and Selcuk Ozturk – both with Turkish origins and accused of having connections with Turkish President Erdogan’s Islamist AKP party. Denk is so radical that it advocates for “Racism Police” to essentially censor speech that is against the Muslim immigrant community. Legal Insurrection reports on this blatantly anti-Western plan:

The party [Denk] wants stricter sentences for “racist and discriminatory behaviour”, and treat so-called offenders much like child molesters by listing them on a nationwide “Racism Register”. The Muslim-dominated party promises to create a 1,000-men strong force to go after “Dutch racists”.

Imagine being arrested for pointing out the Sharia values of some Muslim immigrants and how they’re incompatible with Dutch values. Truthful speech thus becomes racist. Legal Insurrection confirms the troubling trend we are seeing throughout the West,saying:

Denk Party stands in the tradition of George Galloway’s Respect Party in UK, a new mutant ideology taking root in Europe that fuses leftist “social justice” issues with political Islam, dipped in fierce hatred for Israel and Western heritage. Last month, the Denk Party attracted media attention when party’s leader and Dutch MP Tunahan Kuzu refused to shake hands with the visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu.

We are also seeing this same pattern happening in the U.S. with Islamist groups such as CAIR and ISNA exhorting their constituents to support Hillary Clinton for president. For Islamists in the U.S. they don’t necessarily need a separate political party when leftist Democrats further their agenda for them, such as: hindering counterterrorism measures, stifling Israel’s ability to effectively defend itself, and seeking to punish those who insult Islam (for a pertinent example, see Clinton’s support of UN Resolution 16/18). Furthermore, the Islamists have a sympathizer in Huma Abedin, one of Clinton’s top aides, to help advance the cause.

This tactic of accusing those concerned about threats to freedom of being themselves threats to freedom ought to sound alarm bells whenever it is tried.

***

download-16

Machteld Zee: “Islamization is Planned” by Vlad Tepes

A young Dutch political scientist is causing consternation among the bien-pensants of the multicultural Left in the Netherlands with her analyses of Islamization. Her impeccable liberal background and credentials make it more difficult for the establishment to discredit her.

Dr. Van Helsing has translated an interview with this iconoclastic young woman. He includes this introductory note:

Machteld Zee Ph.D. is a Dutch scholar who investigated sharia courts in the UK for her Ph.D. thesis. This interview was published in the Algemeen Dagblad, a nationwide Dutch newspaper, on October 4, 2016.

The interview is relevant for several reasons:

  • Very few non-Muslims ever have gained access to the world of sharia courts in the UK. She has.
  • The University of Leiden is fairly highbrow in the Netherlands, because it is not only one of the oldest universities. but also because the heir to the Dutch throne traditionally studies at this university (for example, our former Queens Juliana and Beatrix did, just like our current head of state King Willem-Alexander). The reputation of this university gives authority to her voice.
  • She has become a target of attacks by leftist apologists for radical Islam since she published her thesis. She could do with some positive publicity. Similarly, Islam-sceptics could benefit from her work.

The translated interview:

“Islamization is Planned”

Investigating Sharia

The Islamization of Europe follows a strategy, according to Machteld Zee in her book Holy Identities, which was published today. ‘Once you have knowledge of it, you understand what is going on.’

‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law that contradicts our secular laws.’

Investigating sharia courts

Machteld Zee (32), a Dutch political scientist from the University of Leiden, studied sharia courts in the UK and wrote her Ph.D. thesis on it in 2015.

She was one of the few outsiders who gained access to the sessions of these Islamic courts. 95% of the cases before these courts are divorce cases. Her investigations resulted in a pamphlet, Holy Identities.

‘If you compare the Netherlands in the 1980s with today,’ says the political scientist and law school graduate Machteld Zee, ‘you will see an increased influence of Islam everywhere. Saudi Arabia and other countries flooded the world with thousands of imams, Islamic text books, mosques and tons of money.’

Machteld Zee needed barely 150 pages to describe the background of Islamic fundamentalism, which is gaining ground in Western countries. Her book Holy Identities: On the Road to a Sharia State is an analysis of the problems of the multicultural society.

You say that conservative Muslims want to convince their fellow Muslims to embrace sharia, the religious law of Islam. These fundamentalists are being helped by ‘useful non-believers’, non-Islamic intellectuals, politicians and opinion leaders who don’t want to offend Muslims.

‘Yes, leading multiculturalists actually believe that Muslims should be shielded from criticism because it would inflict psychological damage on them. Although many Muslims consider this an idiotic point of view, others use it to call those who criticize Islam ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’.

You described yourself as left-leaning liberal when you started your investigation on sharia courts in the UK. Now you warn against a lack of knowledge of and a lack of resistance against the advancing radical Islam.

‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law — far more systematic then I had expected — that contradicts our secular laws. Many Muslim women are locked into a religious marriage because their community thinks a divorce according secular law is insufficient. In these communities — Muslim communities — sharia law trumps secular law when it comes to marriage. Women have to ask a sharia judge or an imam to dissolve their marriage, for example when the husband physically abuses her. Even Dutch Muslim women travel to the UK to appear before sharia courts. It is a parallel society. I object to it because these practices go against women’s rights.’

You have analyzed the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a political and religious movement that aims for world domination, and is supported by lots of money from fundamentalist circles. The sharia courts are part of this project, you wrote.

‘That is why it is so important that we know what is going on. Authors that I studied for my investigation were generally benevolent towards sharia courts. It turned out, however, that none of them ever attended a session of such a court. They don’t know what is going on in these courts. Now they ask me to tell all about it. Women are advised by these courts to accept polygamy and to not file criminal complaints in case of domestic violence. Physically abusive fathers are given custody of their children. I have the impression that the tide of the public debate is turning now that these facts are becoming public. I hardly hear anyone pleading in favour of sharia courts anymore.’

In your book you call out the politically correct elites, who tries to cover up abuse within Islam and tries to downplay the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

‘In the first place, I think I am reporting facts. Where I notice that influential Western intellectuals tend to discourage critics of Islam and help fundamentalists to isolate and ‘Islamize’ Muslim communities, that is a matter of fact. My book is a compact discourse that aims to bring its readers up to date on fundamentalist Islam.’

How do you see the future?

‘We will have to act more defensively and resist Islamization. We should not yield to demands that images of scantily dressed women in public have to be covered up, for example. Just say no. Citizens should not leave everything to the government. They can defend our beliefs and values themselves, too. Why does a college in The Hague decides to abandon the Christmas tree pre-emptively? Why is alcohol banned in places where Muslims show up? There is no need for that. We are doing it to ourselves.’

Do you fear criticism? Undoubtedly, you will be labeled as a right-winger.

‘I don’t experience that when I speak in public. Even a ‘leftist’ audience responds positively to my story. Right-wing? Come on, equal rights for women and resistance against representatives of a religion who make threats of violence — let’s call that common sense.’

Free Speech Champions Fight Back Against OSCE ‘Islamophobia’ Industry

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf

Center for Security Policy, by Clare Lopez, October 13, 2016:

The ‘Islamophobia’ industry’s all-out assault on free speech was on full display at the recent annual meeting of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) in Warsaw, Poland. The Center’s VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez and Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin attended the 26-27 September 2016 session, along with Debra Anderson, ACT! For America Chapter leader in Minnesota, Dave Petteys, ACT! Chapter leader from Colorado and key European colleagues Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf from Austria, Henrik Clausen from Denmark, and Alain Wagner from France.

Center VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez

Center VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is a 57-member regional security organization with representatives from North America, Europe and Asia. It describes itself as a ‘forum for political dialogue on a wide range of security issues’ whose approach encompasses ‘politico-military, economic and environmental, and human dimensions’. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) is an office within the OSCE that claims to be dedicated to democratic elections, respect for human rights, rule of law, tolerance, and non-discrimination.

Their stated overall objective is helping governments protect and promote human rights, fundamental freedoms and tolerance and non-discrimination, as well as to improve and strengthen democratic practices and institutions. Except that the actual theme of the two-day proceedings had a lot more to do with countering ‘hate crime,’ criminalizing ‘hate speech,’ and demonizing ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Islamophobes’ than it did with genuinely championing the right to believe, live, and speak freely.

Of course, the campaign to shut down free speech when it’s about Islam is very much in line with the top agenda item of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), which is to achieve the criminalization of criticism of Islam in national legal codes. Gagging criticism of Islam is also what the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 tries to do. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked hard to make that happen in the U.S. and around the world when she promoted the Istanbul Process. The idea is to use existing laws against ‘incitement to violence,’ but in a novel way that applies a so-called ‘test of consequences.’ That is, if someone, somewhere, sometime decides what somebody said somewhere, sometime is offensive and then launches a ‘Day of Rage,’ or goes on a lawless rampage destroying property, injuring or killing people, guess whose fault that would be? Under the ‘test of consequences’ speech code, that would be the speaker.

Center Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin

Center Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin

Notably, though, the Islamophobia crowd seemed to be very much on the defensive at this OSCE meeting. Their crouch-and-whine posture most likely had to do with the accelerating numbers of horrific Islamic terror attacks, whose trail of carnage and destruction is splashed across screens around the world for all to see. Along with those visuals comes increasing awareness on the part of more and more ordinary people that when they yell ‘Allahu Akbar,’ it doesn’t mean ‘Hail to the Redskins’: it means they are committing that attack in the name of Allah and Islam.

The ‘Islamophobia’ industry has neither the ability nor actual wish to stop jihad but it sure does wish so many were not putting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and Islamic terror together and then speaking out about it. The only recourse left to them is trying desperately to shut down free speech—including places like the U.S. where free speech is Constitutionally-protected. As CSP Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin puts it:

This is a direct extraterritorial demand that non-Muslim jurisdictions submit to Islamic law and implement shariah-based punishment over time. In other words, the OIC is set on making it an enforceable crime for non-Muslim people anywhere in the world—including the United States—to say anything about Islam that Islam does not permit.

In other words, what they’re trying to do is enforce shariah’s law on slander – on us, on everyone, whether Muslim or not.

That effort at the Warsaw OSCE meeting went at it by various means: there was a great deal of emphasis on equating Islamophobia with ‘racism’ (but a new kind – not based on skin color), ‘bigotry,’ and violation of ‘human rights.’ Pouty complaints were heard about ‘feeling discriminated against,’ ‘marginalized,’ and the object of ‘hard looks’ because of wearing a hijab. When legal eagle Steve Coughlin and Danish defender Henrik Clausen demanded a specific legal definition of the term ‘Islamophobia,’ they were assailed for…you guessed it, ‘Islamophobia’! Needless to say, there was no legal definition forthcoming (because ‘everybody knows what it means’).

‘Islamophobia’ hysteria reached peak during the OSCE’s second day plenary session, where the Turkish General Secretary of the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion (EMISCO), Bashy Qurayshi, came unglued with a plaintive wail that ‘Islamophobes’ who’d been permitted to infiltrate the OSCE were “lying, ranting and attempting to spread hatred at this conference.” He even threw in a reference to such ‘Islamophobes’ as ‘Nazis,’ at which point senior representatives at the OSCE head table actually broke into applause.

By way of counterpoint, however, it must be added that many delegates from Civil Society organizations throughout the OSCE membership area—including atheists, Baha’is, Christians, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons—firmly pressed the case for free speech. We know that they took encouragement from our presence and outspokenness, even as we did from theirs.

The ‘Islamophobia’ crown went home from Warsaw in the sure knowledge that their attempts to silence free speech about Islam have stirred a gathering force of liberty’s champions who will not be silenced.

For more coverage of this year’s OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, including photos and video, please see Gates of Vienna at https://gatesofvienna.net/

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy

***

You can also see all the videos here

This Is Not A Phobia: How the Candidates Could’ve Answered the Debate’s Inevitable “Islamophobia” Question

2016-10-10-15_33_05-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-discuss-muslim-ban-youtube-500x350

A phobia is an irrational fear. There is nothing irrational in America’s concerns about Islam.

CounterJihad, October 11, 2016:

An important question came up in Sunday night’s debate.  The candidates were more interested in pushing their pre-existing agendas than in answering it.  We at CounterJihad would like to propose our own answer.

Here is the question:

GORBAH HAMED: Hi. There are 3.3 million Muslims in the United States, and I’m one of them. You’ve mentioned working with Muslim nations, but with Islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being labeled as a threat to the country after the election is over?

In order to provide a proper answer to the question, we must first challenge the idea that there is any sort of “phobia” at work in America’s concerns about Islam.  A phobia is an irrational fear.  There is nothing irrational in America’s concerns about Islam.

Last year in San Bernardino, a woman left her infant daughter with her mother in order to go and kill for Islam.  Thirty-six people were shot in the rampage.  Among the dead was Bennetta Betbadal, who had fled an Islam in Iran that persecuted her as a woman and her family as Christians.  Her memorial fundraiser said that it “is the ultimate irony that her life would be stolen from her that day by what appears to be the same type of extremism that she fled so many years ago.”

This year, a coordinated series of suicide bombs went off in Brussels, the capital of the European Union.  Thirty-two died and over three hundred were injured in the attacks.  One of the bombers, Osama Krayem, had as a boy been featured in a movie about the efforts of Sweden to bring Muslims into their culture in a loving and respectful way.  The film, ‘Without Borders — A Film About Sport And Integration,’ was meant to showcase how good faith and trust could overcome our differences.  Instead, that same boy featured in the film went on to murder our fellows in the name of Islam.

No one believes that all Muslims intend violent jihad, and no one even doubts that the percentage who do is small.  Whatever the percentage, though, the raw numbers are enough to provide a steady stream of murderous attacks.  Paris suffered two major attacks last year, killing a hundred and fifty and injuring hundreds.  Nice saw eighty killed by a truck driver.  Orlando saw fifty murdered in a gay nightclub, in the name of the Islamic State (ISIS).  Nor are these isolated incidents.  The clashes between Islam and other faiths bedevil the world from the insurgency in the southern Philippines to frequent mass murders in Pakistan, and from the slaughter and slavery of ISIS to the slaughter and slavery practiced by Boko Haram.

So first, then:  there is no phobia.  The concern is rational.

How does one deal with a rational concern?  Rationally, of course.  We need an organizing principle to govern our response.  That principle is the principle of non-coercion in matters of faith, which is more commonly known as the principle of freedom of conscience.

This principle grew in a ground made fertile by blood of Europe’s religious wars.  The Thirty Years War savaged central Europe.  The French earlier fought a set of religious wars between Protestants and Catholics.  The English suppressed Catholicism violently during and after the reign of Henry VIII and his successors, and clashed with Protestants in Scotland especially during the Covenanter movement.  The Jacobite wars in Scotland and Ireland also hinged on which religion would dominate the state.

Amid these disasters, a philosopher named John Locke began to promulgate a doctrine that no coercion be used to compel anyone in matters of religious faith.  When he wrote of it in 1689 it was still an idea so unacceptable that he only spoke of it in letters and books published anonymously.  By 1776, when the American Revolution broke out, it was an idea that had begun to be widely accepted in the British colonies.

It would go on to be codified as one of the core values of our First Amendment, which not only forbids the institution of a Federal religion, but restrictions on the free exercise of faith.  It is to this principle that we call all Muslims, and especially those like Hamed who call themselves American Muslims.

We are aware that Islam at times appears to endorse this principle.Al-Baqara 256 is no secret to us.  But while many Muslims speak of this principle (saying, “there is no compulsion in religion”), it is clear that the Islamic world in no way lives by it.  We do not mean merely ISIS and Boko Haram, who convert or enslave by force.  We mean also Iran, which forbids conversion to Christianity or the practice of Christianity by anyone not born into an approved ethnic minority, and which violates the religious freedom of all members of its population under color of law.  We mean also that other great nation of Islam, Saudi Arabia, where citizens can be beaten with whips, castrated, or beheaded to enforce ideals of religious law.  We mean Indonesia, where beatings in the name of Islam are also known.  We mean Pakistan.  We mean even US allies like Bahrain.

The principle of non-coercion in matters of religion is what divides the Muslim world between those we need to fear, and those we can welcome as friends.  A demonstrated allegiance to the principle of non-coercion in religion is the way to show other Americans that you are not their foe.  It requires a clear and verbal oath, to be sure, but that is only the beginning.  We need to see in your actions that you are completely committed to this principle, not only for yourselves but for all.

In this way, we will know that you are not one of those who would condemn us to return to the horrors of religious wars.  This principle was bought at great cost by America’s ancestors.  It was wisely endorsed by America’s Founders.  All Americans have a right to insist on it.  Join us in this, and then we shall defend each other as Americans.

The Anti-Free Speech Mayor

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

City Journal, by Benjamin Weingarten, October 6, 2016:

New York mayor Bill de Blasio is focused like a laser on the important things: namely, ensuring that open and honest discussion about Islam is chilled. At the end of September, the de Blasio administration and the NYC Commission on Human Rights announced a campaign to combat “hateful speech [that] has made Muslim residents the target of misguided attacks and threats, especially in the aftermath of terrorist incidents.”

De Blasio’s office hasn’t quantified the scourge of hateful rhetoric toward Muslims in New York City, likely because it is unquantifiable. The best argument the mayor can make for his new initiative is that “reports of attacks and threats against Muslims have surged nationally,” this despite the FBI’s most recent hate-crime figures showing once again that a disproportionate percentage of all hate crimes were driven by anti-Jewish bias, by 57 percent to 16 percent versus anti-Islamic bias.

To make the claim that conditions are particularly hostile for Muslims in New York, the mayor offers that the Commission on Human Rights has “increased investigations into discrimination based on race, national origin, and religion in New York City by more than 60 percent over the last two years.” Presumably, the city would have shown a specific increase in actual bias crimes against New York Muslims if the data actually backed its narrative.

De Blasio’s new program explicitly calls for countering “negative rhetoric,” which means that it is speech that his office seeks to police. Nowhere does de Blasio explain where he gets the right as mayor to use taxpayer dollars to challenge speech he doesn’t like and that his office can’t even quantify. Further, how is it within the purview of an elected official to promote a particular religious group in the first place? The press-release language is drafted nicely to say that the mayor’s office is promoting “respect, understanding, and support” for the city’s Muslim communities, rather than Islam itself. But the mayor’s office is partnering with the Islamic Center at NYU on a new “cultural competency initiative” called “Understanding Islam.” The purpose? “[T]o help City employees and public and private employers citywide better understand the Islamic faith and to dispel common myths.” One can imagine the howls about separation of church and state that a city initiative to help employees better understand the Catholic or Jewish faiths would provoke.

Equally disturbing is de Blasio’s meeting of the minds with London mayor Sadiq Khan, who has ties to several Islamic supremacists, and has supported policies consistent with Sharia law. In mid-September, de Blasio and Khan spoke with Muslim leaders and community members about how New York and other cities “can better address Islamophobia and prevent hate crimes and other acts of discrimination.” Preventing crime is a laudable goal. Policing “Islamophobia,” however, means, in effect, enforcing Islamic law—with its radically different understanding of intellectual freedom—over and above our First Amendment rights.

There’s precedent for de Blasio’s actions. For over a decade, the 57-member Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) has been promoting a plan of actionfor “combating Islamophobia,” including “call[ing] upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.” In 2011, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton gave the U.S. imprimatur to the OIC-drafted UN Human Rights Coalition (HRC) Resolution 16/18 consistent with this agenda, which calls for, “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”

Wittingly or unwittingly, New York is enforcing a plan that conforms with the stated aims of the foremost supranational Islamic political body, consistent with Sharia speech-code standards and to the detriment of free-speech rights. Earlier this year, the NYPD purged valuable resources produced by its intelligence division that forthrightly described the Islamic supremacist ideology. Now, the de Blasio administration is committing to combat free speech, publicly support Islam, and educate New Yorkers on the religion’s purportedly true meaning. We’re in the best of hands.