Founding Fathers’ Criticism of ‘Musselmen’ Sinks Suhail Khan’s Islam-Is-American P.R.

From Global Faith Forum

From Global Faith Forum

Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Dec. 30, 2015:

Suhail Khan, an official in the George W. Bush administration, is engaged in a media campaign that claims Islam is ingrained in the founding of the American republic.

In his Foreign Policy piece, titled “Islam is All-American,” (which would later be re-published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette with the title “One Nation Under Allah“) Mr. Khan begins by insisting that American Muslims are under attack–a plea to perpetual victimization that seeks to immediately quash any legitimate debate.

Khan targets GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, insisting he has called for the “registration of all Muslim-Americans,” which is not true. As Breitbart News has shown, this was a media-created suggestion.

Khan claims that “5 million to 7 million” Muslims are living in the United States, without offering any evidence.

He tells us to look to former President George W. Bush for a more “unifying message,” and claims that “poll after poll” demonstrates support for “anti-Muslim sentiment,” without citing one such poll.

What Khan does here, whether purposely or not, is conflate criticism of Islam’s doctrines with “anti-Muslim sentiment” aimed at Muslim individuals. Unsurprisingly, he never addresses whether criticism of Islam is legitimate.

In many Islamic countries, majorities or large percentages of the population favor the death penalty for “apostates,” which includes people who criticize Islam, according to Pew Research. These countries say that the Koranic Sharia law demands they live by such methods.

Across the globe, critics of Islam are slaughtered (see Charlie Hebdo, Bangladesh secular bloggers, Saudi atheists) simply for discussing the “religion of peace.” The “lucky ones,” such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, and others, have mere fatwas placed on their head.

While many in the Islamic world react violently to criticism of their religion, others, such as Suhail Khan, seek to delegitimize these free voices as ones that make Muslims “feel singled out.” He insists that our enemy “makes no distinction about our race, ethnicity, or religion – attacking us only because we are Americans.”

Americans turn on their televisions and see hundreds-of-thousands of Muslim men fighting on behalf of Islam, engaged in a wholesale murder campaign against religious and ethnic minorities. The free-thinking American people are gravely concerned to see these deeply-religious Islamic groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, targeting people simply because they’re Jews. Or whether it’s Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, and the Islamic State hunting down Christians simply because they’re Christians.

Yet, Mr. Khan tells us that the conflict is our fault. This supposed “anti-Muslim sentiment” trend in America needs to stop, he demands. How dare we start “casting suspicion on an entire faith group,” he suggests.

And the founders of the republic supported Islam, he claims, because they made clear their views on religious freedom, and their assertion that a belief in a particular religion should not prevent a man from holding office.

But in reality, the founders had plenty to say about Islam’s doctrines.

John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1814, stating that Islam’s Muhammad was a “military fanatic” who “denies that laws were made for him” and “arrogates everything to himself by force of arms.”

Ben Franklin, another founding father, said of Islam:

“Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book [the Quran] forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen (Muslims), who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it.”

Thomas Jefferson, who would later become engaged in a war against the Barbary pirates, observed that peace was not possible with Islamic zealots, stating in a letter to Secretary of State John Jay:

“The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Our 6th president, John Quincy Adams, wrote that the Islamic Prophet Muhammad “spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth.”

“He declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind …The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust: to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature … As the essential principle of his faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.”

None of those critiques make their way into Khan’s piece, as he concludes, incoherently: “In this time of real danger, let’s not allow our zeal to defend our ideals destroy them.”

Counter-Jihad: We’re About Truth, Not Hate

Wafa Sultan

Wafa Sultan

Frontpage, by Danusha V. Goska, Dec. 22, 2015:

On December 2, 2015, two Muslim terrorists massacred fourteen Americans at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California. On December 6, President Obama delivered an Oval Office address. In it, he said, “We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam … It is the responsibility of all Americans to reject discrimination.” Many listeners were disappointed that Obama focused so much passion on lecturing Americans.

Media reported that hostility against Muslims increased after the San Bernardino attack. Public figures including Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, filmmaker Michael Moore, and Wheaton college professorLarycia Hawkins insisted that Muslims must be protected against the bigotry, stereotyping, and violence of non-Muslim Americans.

President Obama, Zuckerberg, Moore, and Hawkins are acting on their own bigotry. In hostility and ignorance, they stereotype all Americans (except Muslims, of course) as an inherently ignorant lynch mob. That’s not who we Americans are. If Americans had been hearing from their leaders what they need to hear – a passionate defense of Western Civilization and a ringing condemnation of jihad – average Americans would not feel that they themselves must take on both rhetorical tasks. Americans, as YouTube curmudgeon Pat Condell pointed out, are trying to fill a leadership vacuum and to speak and hear unspoken truths.

It is a demonstrable historical fact that Americans have traditionally not held hatred toward or stereotypes of Muslims. A hundred years ago, if Americans thought of Muslims at all, they associated Muslims with romance. Maud Hull’s 1919 softcore novel The Sheik was a blockbuster bestseller. Superstar Rudolph Valentino made two Sheik films, in 1921 and 1926. They were record-breaking international hits.

It is primarily terrorists and Islam-apologists, people like Obama, Zuckerberg, Moore and Hawkins, who are in fact responsible for the current tension. Politically Correct speech codes suppress and demonize necessary conversations about Islam. Priests and rabbis, presidents and judges, journalists and college professors – the very people whose job it is to wield words to address matters of public import – are complicit. These cultural leaders are all covering their own posteriors, timidly mincing words so that no stray syllable can be used against them. Americans are frustrated and outraged at this absence of frank speech.

It is exactly because of this suppression of speech on a matter of life-and-death importance that some Americans have been pushed over the edge and are letting their fears and frustrations get the better of them. Some are using hateful neologisms that previously did not exist in the English language: “sand n – – – – -,” “raghead,” “koranimal,” “Mudslime.” Some are joking about nuking Mecca. Some say they hate all Muslims. Some act on that hate.

Clear and frank speech on Islam will alleviate, not exacerbate, anti-Muslim hostility and help, not hurt, Muslims. Such speech could ease tensions and educate and reassure the populace. Effective counter-jihad activists recognize the following two truths:

1.) Islam poses challenges to world civilization that are posed by no other belief system.

2.) Hating and stereotyping all Muslims is not only not helpful, hatred and stereotyping of all Muslims actually undermines counter-jihad.

Below you’ll find my story, four reasons why hate and stereotyping are counter-productive, and eight statements by counter-jihad activists who all agree: we must fearlessly address the challenges Islam presents. We must be victorious. And we must point out why hate and stereotyping undermine our cause.

My Story

I was born, grew up in, and currently live in Passaic County, NJ, home of one of the US’s largest Muslim populations.

I have had Muslim friends, bosses, landlords, doctors, coworkers, and students. I have not encountered more or less intelligence, kindness, honesty, violence, humor, or generosity among Muslims than I have in any other population.

When I was sick and needed a ride to the hospital, a Muslim drove me. Later, as I slept, she quietly entered my apartment, left food, flowers, and a heating pad, and retreated silently. When there was a problem with my prescription or my tire, it was a Muslim pharmacist, and a Muslim mechanic, who saved the day. Such encounters are part of day-to-day life in New Jersey.

While working in the Central African Republic, I traveled over night with Muslim men in a truck caravan across uninhabited jungle. I was the only Westerner, the only woman. They treated me well. In Turkey, Muslims greeted me in remote villages and in Istanbul, a cosmopolitan city. I was treated like visiting royalty.

I’ve been a guest at traditional Muslim feasts. I’ve also done very American activities with Muslim friends. I have swum at Gunnison, New Jersey’s nude beach. I’ve drunk beer and eaten lunch during Ramadan.

My Facebook friend Lucy is not from New Jersey. She has never met any Muslims. She didn’t think about Islam till September 11, 2001. When I mention my Muslim friends to Lucy, she yells and screams and types in all caps.

“Muslims are commanded not to take kuffar as friends!”

“I know,” I say. “Koran 5:51.”

“These people you talk about are not really Muslims!” Lucy insists.

I respond that we can debate semantics and accomplish nothing. I know people who identify as Muslim, who are the children of Muslim parents, whose first language is Arabic or Turkish or Urdu, who drink alcohol and eat during Ramadan and don’t pray five times a day.

“What about taqiyya?”

I respond that the Muslims I know have never heard of taqiyya, any more than most Catholics I know have ever heard of “ex cathedra” or most Americans know what the Monroe Doctrine is. For the Muslims I know, Islam is found in the kitchen, in the family room, and in the street. Islam is found in family photographs and stories of grandma and grandpa. Many Muslims I know have never read the Koran, and have at best a flimsy idea of what it contains.

“These nice Muslims are dangerous,” Lucy insists. “They provide cover for the terrorists! Their niceness gets us to lower our guard! They convince people that Islam really is a religion of peace!”

“Look,” I say. “Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch has been on the internet since 2003. If Americans are ‘fooled by nice Muslims’ they have only themselves to blame.”

Muslims vary. Some are nice. Some are jerks. Islam does not vary. Jihad and gender apartheid must be named, condemned, and defeated.

One day, back in the 1970s, I was leaving class with my friend. “Nur” was beautiful, a gentle person, and a talented artist; she used to doodle arabesques in her notebook margins. We were comparing our two religious traditions. She said “When the time for jihad comes, if you don’t accept Islam, I will have to kill you.”

I had been educated in Catholic school, where nuns encouraged me to interrogate my faith. I extended to Nur that invitation. “Just for the sake of argument, let’s imagine for a moment that there is no Allah,” I suggested.

Nur replied that she could not. She had been trained that even a moment’s doubt could lead to an eternity in Hell. Koran 49:15 says that believers are only those who do not doubt. cites numerous verses and traditions to support condemnation of doubt.

I compared Nur’s mind-numbing and mind-imprisoning terror with the spirit of inquiry my faith had encouraged in me: to fully understand my Christian faith, I had to suspend and examine it. I thought of famous Biblical passages like John 20:24-29 and Mark 9:17-29 where Jesus does not punish, but shows compassion to doubters.

Later, in the 1980s, when I was working in Paterson, I used to hang out with a group of young, male, Arab friends and coworkers. We had hours-long debates. Some, not all of these men voiced enthusiastic support for terrorism. They said that the day was coming when jihadis would commit acts of terror in the US. They said that American culture – the culture in which they were all immersed – would topple, and Islam would replace it.

These conversations frightened and angered me. I was angry at the dominant discourse in America that made it taboo to criticize Islam.

After the September 11 terror attacks occurred, I thought, if one good thing can come of this nightmare, it will be this. America will finally speak frankly about jihad.

On September 17, 2001, less than a week after the terror attack, President George Bush, with CAIR members standing behind him, under distinctive Islamic architecture, made the demonstrably false and propagandistic statement that “Islam is peace.” His entire talk was an apologia for Islam. Bush referred to the September 11 terror attack as “the matter at hand” – rather than as the terror attack that it was. He quoted selectively from the “eloquent” Koran. He insisted that all Muslims were outraged, though we know many publicly celebrated. Bush warned against Americans harassing Muslims, as if that were the problem.

I did not encounter, in the wake of 9-11, the frank speech about jihad that America desperately needed.

America’s learning curve has been steep. In spite of PC speech codes, more and more Americans are self-educating about Islam. Some Americans are succumbing to the temptation to hate. Hate is a mistake. Here’s why:

1.) Every time a keyboard commando uses a slur or makes a threat, he is depositing capital into the grievance account maintained by CAIR, by Linda Sarsour, by academics and journalists and other victimization profiteers. Images of Muslims as victims of Western Christians are so valuable that some have staged hate crimes.

2.) Slurs and threats displace necessary facts. Schools, politicians, and churches are not educating the public about Islam. Counter-jihad activists must do this work, and we must move it from a few websites that preach to the choir into classrooms, sermons, political discourse, and mainstream media. The facts are extreme enough that they require no hateful elaboration.

3.) Americans, contrary to hateful PC stereotypes, are not a lynch mob rabble. Americans are nice, tolerant people who abhor racism. Those who speak in gutter slurs, “nuke-Mecca” memes and keyboard commando threats are not conveying the message that needs to be heard, and they are not reaching the audience that needs to hear.

4.) Your grandmother was correct. You really do catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Mosab Hassan Yousef was born to be a terrorist. He was the first son of one of the founders of Hamas. His first arrest was at age ten for throwing rocks at Israelis. In his book Son of Hamas, Yousef described “an old Coptic priest.” “He was kind and gentle and had a warm, compelling voice. I liked him … he was systematically performing an autopsy on the Koran, opening it up and exposing every bone, muscle, sinew and organ and then putting them under the microscope of truth and showing the entire book to be cancerous. Factual and historical inaccuracies, contradictions – he revealed them precisely and respectfully but firmly and with conviction.” In a 2014 interview, Yousef said, “Christianity really helped me to escape from the Islamic mindset. I still follow the idea of loving our enemies and of unconditional forgiveness.”

Nabeel Qureshi‘s parents were “immigrants from Pakistan and among the most dedicated Muslims I have ever known.” In his book Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus, Qureshi describes how friendships with Christians, who politely but authoritatively challenged Islam, sparked his conversion.

Below, eight counter-jihad activists offer their thoughts about confronting jihad even while rejecting hate and stereotyping. Each was interviewed one-on-one. The presence of an individual in this article does not imply his or her endorsement of ideas expressed by others quoted here.


Watch and Share – Your Freedom of Speech is Under Attack

Brooke Goldstein at Lawfare Project has produced a very powerful video to raise awareness on the Islamic threat to free speech.


You can download the book, “Lawfare – the War Against Free Speech – A First Amendment Guide for Reporting in an Age of Islamist Warfare” by Brooke Goldstein and Aaron Eitan Meyer for free at

The West’s Dangerous Enchantment with Islam: Muslim Women Thrown “Under the Bus”

Gatestone Institute, by Uzay Bulut, Nov. 9, 2014:

There are no women’s rights in Islam; there are no women’s rights in most Muslim countries. And there is no freedom of expression in these countries; people have become virtually voiceless.

To make a positive change in Muslim countries, we need to be able to speak openly, without putting one’s life at risk, and tell the (too-often criminalized) truth about what Islamic teachings and traditions actually contain.

If one is called “racist” or “Islamophobe,” the answer is that these are the accusations bullies always use to silence those who disagree with them. The real Islamophobes are those who degrade, abuse and kill their fellow Muslims.

If oppression of women is rooted in the culture, shouldn’t one be asking, ‘what makes a culture that misogynous?’

There is a situation even more frightening. It now seems to be difficult to speak openly about fundamentalist Islam even in Western countries. The worst thing any Western progressive or feminist can do is to stay silent.

The loudest voices in the West now seem to come from many progressives who say that criticizing of Islam is racist, intolerant, bigoted and Islamophobic. Injustices, they claim, take place all around the world, not just among Muslims or in Muslim countries. The criticism, they go on, comes from wrong interpretations of Islamic teachings. They say that Islam respects women, and that there are good and bad Muslims, just as there are good and bad people in all religions.

In just seven years, however, between 2002 and 2009, the rate of murdered women in Turkey has increased by 1400 percent.[1]

There are also more than 181,000 child brides in Turkey.[2]

When those figures are provided by state authorities, they are based on factual statistics. But when they are expressed in a critical manner by Canan Arin, a lawyer and women rights activist, they are, apparently, a “crime.”

Canan Arin, 72, is a feminist lawyer who has dedicated her life to women’s rights struggles in Turkey.[3]

The Antalya Bar Association, in December 2011, invited her to its newly founded Women’s Rights Enforcement Centre to give training to the lawyers on violence against women. There, she delivered a speech about early and forced marriages, and gave two examples — one from the 7th century, the other from the 20th century — to clarify her point.

The first example concerned Muhammad, the founder of Islam, who married a girl of seven. The second was about Abdullah Gul, then-President of the Turkish Republic, who became engaged to his wife when she was 14 and married her when she was 15, in 1980.

Although both of those examples are supposedly based on the truth, speaking the truth in Turkey now seems to constitute a crime. A year later, therefore, a warrant was issued for Arin’s arrest, and on December 12, 2012, she was brought to court for “insulting religious values adopted by a part of the society” (Turkish Penal Code Article- 216/3) and for “insulting the President” (Turkish Penal Code- Article 299/1).

On May 30, 2013, the court declared its final decision, which was the adjournment of the trial. According to the ruling, if Arin commits a similar crime in three years and receives a punishment for it, her case will be reopened.

“If I do not open my mouth for three years, and do not engage in [discussions of similar] subject matters, this trial will be ignored. Their ruling is like running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. But this trial should have never been opened in the first place,” Arin said to the Turkish newspaper, Hurriyet.

It is bewildering that any prosecutor actually considers child marriage a “value.” According to the Turkish Statistical Institute, in 2012 alone, the rate of parental consent for legal marriage under the age of 18 increased by 94.2%. This increase is not taking place in a country ruled by Islamic sharia law, but in Turkey, the only so-called “secular” Muslim country.

There are no women’s rights in Islam; there are no women rights in most Muslim countries. And as there is no freedom of expression in these countries, people have become virtually voiceless.

Yet many people, especially the so-called progressives, seem to find limitless excuses for fundamentalist Islamic atrocities against women. These include beheadings, stonings, domestic violence, honor killings, female genital mutilation, official legal inequality, home confinement, child marriages, and Saudi Arabia’s prohibition against women driving, to name a few.

Statements that come up with “multicultural” excuses to provide cover for the practices of fundamentalist Islam, however, never have, and never will, help to liberate women who suffer under Islamic misogyny, gender apartheid and jihad.

To make a positive change in Muslim countries, we need to be able to speak openly and tell the (too-often criminalized) truth about what Islamic teachings and traditions actually contain. Yet in Muslim countries, it is impossible speak openly about what is in these Islamic teachings and traditions, without putting one’s life at risk.

There is a situation even more frightening. It now seems to be difficult to speak openly about fundamentalist Islam even in Western countries, in part thanks to the dangerous enchantment of Western progressives and feminists who romanticize Islamism.

Women in the Muslim world desperately need the voice of Western progressives and feminists. But when it comes to finding excuses to neutralize critical questions about Islamic violence, Western progressives seem endlessly creative. Known by an increasing number of women as “Excuses for Abuses,” these include:

Criticizing Islam is racist and reveals “intolerance,” “bigotry” and “Islamophobia.”

For the record, Islam is not a race. Moreover, if you discuss the violent and misogynous teachings of Islam, it does not mean that you hate or are intolerant of Muslims, just of violence and misogyny.

It does mean that you care about Muslim women; that you do not want them to be forced to find four male “witnesses” to “prove” they have been raped, or to be punished by Islamic courts as adulterers if their rapists do not confess. It means you believe that their testimony in court, or their inheritance, should be valued as highly as a man’s; that you do not want them to be the victim of honor killings or child marriages at the hands of their Muslim family members, and that you do not want their husbands to be able beat them with impunity.

It also means that you want children to grow up to be honest, informed, compassionate adults, filled with love for life and fellow human beings, and who can speak up for rights and liberties that can never be taken for granted — all gained as a result of centuries-long wars, struggles and social movements.

It means you do not want to see children blowing themselves up on a bus, or people buying or selling women, or killing their sisters for not wearing the hijab. And finally, it means that you do not want children getting married at the age of seven, especially to men they have never met, or to be hypocrites who have to say, “Islam is a religion of peace” to defend themselves every time another Muslim commits a crime justified by proclaiming Islamic beliefs.

“Injustices against women take place all around the world, not just against Muslims or in Muslim countries.”

If the oppression of women is rooted in the culture, shouldn’t one be asking, ‘what makes a culture that misogynous?’

What is progressivism if its objectives do not include helping emancipate women from Islamic oppression, such as honor killings, child marriages, stonings, flogging and punishing rape victims (while releasing rapists) — all of which are employed in the Muslim world, in line with Islamic teachings, allegedly to “protect” and “respect” women and to keep them “pure,” but more probably to keep women in their place?

“What you are seeing is not the real Islam; Islam has been hijacked.”

The problem with this view is that Islam actually does teach that a woman is worth less than a man. Many teachings in Islam are misogynous — from wearing veils; requiring four male witness to prove rape; issues of inheritance; court testimony; rules of marriage; rules of divorce and remarriage; a man’s “right” to marry up to four women and then beat them, and so on.

If Western progressives and feminists care at all about their Muslim sisters, they need to protest against the actual roots of this injustice: these Islamic teachings.

Many progressives, however, seem not even to want to learn about them, let alone speak out against them. Perhaps they fear that if they knew more, they might actually have to speak out. Or perhaps they remain silent from indifference or inertia. But if all they really care about in the West is their (understandable) ability to get abortions and equal pay for equal work, they have badly failed to grasp the consequences of a theocracy on everyone, not only on women.

If they wished to inform themselves, they might read just the verses of the Quran relating to women and glance at the hadith sunnah literature — all easily found on the internet. Then — if they sincerely wished to raise future generations with humanitarian values, equal justice under law, and a respect for human rights — they might educate others about those teachings, while basing their opinions on knowledge, not on wishful thinking.

“If you accommodate Islamic misogyny,” says the writer Pat Condell, “you legitimize it and you invite it into your own life and into the lives of your children … because it’s coming your way. You also help to ensure that the woman in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, who gets beaten every day, will continue to be beaten and treated as a piece of property, as will her daughters and granddaughters all the way down the line.”

“It is not about Islam. Crimes were committed and are being committed in all places throughout history.”

The world is no paradise, but in the West, if economic, political or social causes of injustices are freely discussed, why should religious, or Islamic, causes be exempt from discussion?

In many Muslim countries, where only Islam — but not the people — has the right to survive, such discussion is impossible without extreme risk. Even in Turkey, considered one of the most “liberal” of Muslim countries, if you dare to discuss or criticize the teachings of Islam, you can be killed, arrested, attacked, exposed to social and psychological lynching campaigns, brought to court and given a prison sentence.

Do progressives not oppose supremacy and oppression? Why then do they turn a blind eye to Islamic supremacy and oppression?

In Gaza, for instance, for whom Western progressives claim to have so much sympathy, women are systematically murdered in honor killings, and the Hamas government does not protect them. Appeals court judge Ziad Thabet, told Al-Monitor that “during his time in the judiciary, he had noticed that honor killing defendants were usually given light sentences. Three years in prison was the harshest…. Life sentences or execution were never a consideration.”

Al Jazeera also reported that “the number of so-called ‘honor killings’ in Palestine doubled in 2013 from the previous year. … For the past three years, the number of women killed has increased each year.”

Can Western feminists not stand up even against a terrorist group, Hamas, on behalf of Gazan women, who cannot speak up for themselves for fear of reprisals? Or would this not be as pleasurable as condemning Israel, the only Middle Eastern country where Muslim women do have equal rights? Or can these progressives only parrot propaganda, such as, “Palestinian women are exposed to honor killings by angry Palestinian men due to the Israeli occupation”?

“Not all Muslims are the same. There are good and bad Muslims, just as there are good and bad people in all religions.”

First of all, thank you very much for this genius discovery. But how can it help reduce the Islamic violence around the world?

Of course it is true that there are many good Muslims, whose values do not follow Islamic teachings verbatim, but also include humanitarian values. They do not wage war on other religions or try to bring them under submission to Islam. In the eyes of jihadis or Islamists, however, who live by the harshest interpretation of most doctrinaire Islamic teachings, such a quality makes them “bad Muslims.”

“All religions are essentially the same.”

Well, not quite. Biblical values are far more benign than Islamic ones, and generally descriptive rather than proscriptive. Furthermore, the most violent of them were long ago abandoned.

No religion, for instance, other than Islam, has ever commanded that those who insult or leave it should be put to death. (See Surahs 6:93, 33:57, 33:61)

On September 24 after being found guilty of “heresy” and “insulting prophet Jonah,” Mohsen Amir Aslani, 37, an Iranian psychologist, was hanged in a prison near the city of Karaj west of Tehran, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency. Aslani, it seems, had given religious classes where he provided his own interpretations of the Quran. In one of his classes, he apparently told his audience that Jonah could not have emerged from the whale’s belly; it was this statement that led to his charge of insulting the prophet Jonah, the Iran Wire websitereported.

Left: Canan Arin, a feminist lawyer arrested in Turkey for “insulting religious values adopted by a part of the society” and “insulting the President,” after she mentioned that the Muslim prophet Muhammad married a 7-year-old girl and the President of Turkey married his wife when she was 15 years old. Right: Mohsen Amir Aslani, an Iranian psychologist who was hanged in Iran for the crimes of “heresy” and “insulting prophet Jonah,” after he said that the biblical prophet Jonah could not have emerged from a whale’s belly.

How much time will pass until Islam is reformed or reinterpreted? How many people will be killed, attacked or enslaved until that happens? How many Muslims have the free will or courage to speak out? Will Islamists even ever allow them to, without threatening retaliation? Are the Islamists so uncertain that what they are preaching can stand on its merits — as the Quran instructs, “without compulsion” — that they cannot even tolerate even a single comment about one of their prophets?

What Western progressives and feminists are doing for the sake of political correctness — or a well intentioned, if misguided, “multiculturalism” — does nothing to help Muslim women. On the contrary, “political correctness,” silence, or making excuses for atrocities caused by Islam, can only add to the suffering of women in the Muslim world.

If progressives truly want to protect Muslims, they cannot achieve this goal by “protecting” Islam from criticism.

If one is called “racist” or “Islamophobe,” the answer is that these are accusations bullies always use to silence people who disagree with them. The real Islamophobes are those who degrade, abuse and kill their fellow Muslims.

The worst thing any Western progressive or feminist can do in the face of the suffering caused by Islamic teachings, is to stay silent.

Uzay Bulut is a Turkish journalist based in Ankara.

[1] According to the Turkish Ministry of Justice, 2009.

[2] According to the data of the Turkish Statistical Institute in 2012.

[3] Arin co-founded the Purple Roof-Women’s Shelter Foundation, the Association for the Support of Women Candidates and the Women’s Rights Enforcement Centre of the Istanbul Bar Association. Between 1994 and 1997, she acted as an expert on violence against women for the Gender Equality Commission of the Council of Europe.


ben-affleck-hbo-real-timeBreitbart, by BEN SHAPIRO:

On Friday night, Bill Maher hosted atheist author Sam Harris, actor Ben Affleck, former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof to discuss Maher’s rant last week in which he discussed the violence of radical Islam and the prevalence of belief in radical Islam. Harris sided with Maher; Maher defended his comments.

Affleck, Kristof, and Steele, however, all suggested that Maher’s criticism of Islam went too far. Steele said that moderate Muslims just don’t receive media coverage. Affleck actually suggested that Maher’s criticisms of Islam were akin to calling someone a “shifty Jew.” Kristof said that because Maher and Harris had the temerity to quote polls about acceptance of anti-Muslim violence by Muslims all over the world, he was talking “a little bit of the way white racists talk about African-Americans.”

Maher, correctly, stated, “What you’re saying is, ‘because they’re a minority, we shouldn’t criticize.’” He added that Islam is the “only religion that acts like the Mafia that will f***ing kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book. There’s a reason why Ayaan Hirsi Ali needs bodyguards 24/7.”

After 9/11, Americans wondered why the Bush and Clinton administrations had failed to connect the dots. Perhaps it’s because the culture of political correctness means that we must see every dot as disconnected, rather than as part of a broader intellectual and philosophical framework. If you stand too close to a Seurat painting, you’re likely to miss the fact that you’re looking at a Sunday Afternoon on the Island of la Grande Jatte, rather than a random series of colored dots.

By acting as though terrorists and their supporters are outliers, occasional needles hidden within massive haystacks, we fail to make policy based upon reality. The politically correct mob insists we look at terrorist incidents as occasional blips, rather than outgrowths of a dangerous ideology that must be uprooted completely. And so we miss signals. We miss red flags.

Now, it is possible that our politicians lie to us. It is possible that they see the patterns and monitor those patterns. It’s possible they understand the radical Islamic funding of mosques all over the world, the recruitment of Muslims across the planet to support jihad.

But those lies – if they are lies – have consequences. They are parroted by fools, both left and right, who cite Bush and Clinton and Obama and all the rest for the proposition that Islam means peace and that Islamic terror groups are not Islamic. Instead, they claim, Islamic terrorists are merely crazy folks. Which means we don’t have to take their ideology seriously, their appeal seriously, or their outreach seriously.

And so we don’t. That’s why the State Department released an ad in early September showing crucifixions, Muslims being shot in the head, a blown-up mosque, and a beheaded body. Apparently, the State Department believed their own press: they believed that by castigating ISIS as an un-Islamic outlier, they could convince potential allies to stay away. That’s idiocy. ISIS releases precisely the same sort of videos as recruitment efforts – the Islamic terrorists understand that they are, in fact, Islamic. So do those they target.

In order to defend an ideology or a religion, one should know something about the ideology or religion. Ben Affleck, Nicholas Kristof, and Michael Steele are not Islamic scholars. Neither are George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton. In fact, when it comes to points of Islamic law, any average member of ISIS likely knows more than any of the aforementioned defenders of Islam.

The West cannot be the great defender of Islam, because we have no capacity to slice radical Islam out of broader Islam. We are radically unqualified to do so. We can only fight those who share an ideology dedicated to our destruction. And defending that broader ideology by downplaying a so-called “fringe minority” only emboldens those of the radical minority.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the new book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.orgFollow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.


Published on Oct 3, 2014 by Dole Mite

Also see:

What Possible Good Does It Do To Say Anything Negative About Islam, Even If It’s True?

kabaCitizen Warrior:

One of the most important things we recommend is learn about Islam and share that information with your fellow non-Muslims.

But if you’ve ever tried to tell your friends about jihad, you’ve probably discovered most people don’t want to hear it. They will sometimes argue with you even if they know nothing about Islam, and they don’t understand why you would want to “bash” another religion.

But sharing this information is the best thing a citizen can do to help marginalize, discredit, and disempower orthodox Islam, which is the goal here. So the question is: How can you talk to people about a subject they don’t want to talk about?

There is only one answer: First you must motivate them to listen.

Almost as a prerequisite for this topic, before you can really have a good listener, you will need to explain why it’s important to know more about Islamic teachings. Most people you come across will literally not have a clue why you would even be interested, or why they should be.

So below are the top twelve reasons why it’s a sane, rational, sensible goal to know more about Islam. When you start to talk about jihad or Sharia and you can see the resistance or suspicion on the face of your listener, ask them, “Are you wondering why I’m even interested in this?” If they are curious, let them know about one or two of the reasons below.

While you’re reading the list here, pick out the ones you think would be the most effective, and make it a point to remember them for your next conversation:

1. Orthodox Muslims are immigrating to western democracies.From within our democracies, including the one we are living in, they are setting up terrorist cells right now. Their spokesmen are delivering fiery tirades at mosques and at demonstrations in our own country, calling the faithful Muslims to rise up against the infidels (you and me), telling the Muslims in their congregation it is their holy duty to overthrow the government and to establish Islamic law. They are recruiting native-born westerners into terrorist groups.

They are in free countries now, preaching hatred. And most western democracies allow more in all the time. Why? Because most westerners don’t know much about Islam.

2. The devoted ones will perpetually try to change our laws, from within and from without. They have already done so in Europe and Canada, and all over the world. Islam is a political ideology. It is the duty of faithful Muslims to work toward making every government on earth follow Allah’s law (Sharia law).

They are carefully following a 20-year plan to overthrow the U.S. government, and so far, they are succeeding. Why? Because most Americans don’t know anything about Islam.

If westerners knew what was going on, they could resist it. But our ignorance makes their job very easy.

3. They are having more children than most of us. There are many ways to wage jihad and subjugate infidels. One is through violence. Another is through reproduction. You can out-reproduce the enemy, which Muslims have been doing. They are immigrating in large numbers into western democracies, and having as many children as they can, and teaching them to be devout Muslims.

Devout Muslims will try to turn any country they live into an Islamic state, no matter how long it takes. They have to. It is their religious duty to do so, whether they want to or not.

4. The teenage children of moderate Muslims are being persuaded by terrorist recruiters. Even if many of the Muslims who immigrate are authentically peaceful (ignore the political and intolerant teachings of orthodox Islam), some of their children will be vulnerable to recruitment as they see through the hypocrisy of their parents’ incomplete worship.

The children of Muslims have heard all their lives from everyone in authority that the Koran is a direct message from the Almighty Himself. As teens, if they hear a preacher tell them what’s actually in the Koran, they will be shocked. The Koran contains clear instructions to wage continual war on unbelievers until the whole world submits to Islamic law.

The teens will look at their parents and feel disgusted. Their parents — the ones who have told them repeatedly that the Koran is the perfect word of Allah — ignore much of the book.

So in other words, it wouldn’t even matter if we could somehow screen Muslims who enter western democracies for fanaticism. Even if we only let in casual, half-hearted Muslims (peaceful Muslims), their children are potential “homegrown terrorists.”

Plus, we cannot ignore the added benefit of dying while slaying infidels:You go straight to heaven, and have 72 beautiful wives ready to do your bidding. What 15 year-old boy wouldn’t find that an attractive proposition?

All his life he’s been told the Koran is Allah’s message, and he finally reads it cover to cover (it’s not very long) and discovers those preachers were right: It says quite clearly that if he dies while killing infidels he will go straight to heaven without passing GO, without having to be judged, and there, awaiting him, is his lovely harem.

It doesn’t take any interpreting or “reading into” the Koran to know what it says. There are no vague analogies or stories open to multiple interpretations as there are in the Torah and the Bible. It is a clear, simple, direct message written by one man. Anyone who reads it will know what to do.

5. Confusing current events become understandable. Once you learn what’s really going on, the scary terrorist events that make you think, “Why are they doing this?!” are suddenly illuminated, and you know exactly why they’re doing it, and why most westerners don’t have a clue about what’s going on.

You would think that learning about Islamic jihad would make you hate Muslims, but strangely enough, it does the opposite. Most Muslims are in an even worse situation than the infidels. The more you learn about Islam, the more sympathy you have for Muslims who had no choice in the matter and cannot escape without risking their lives and the lives of everyone they love.

But sometimes learning about the subject is upsetting. It is a shock to learn what’s in the Koran, knowing that one and a half billion human beings believe this is the final message from the supreme ruler of the universe.

But after you get over the shock, it makes world events less upsetting. You will understand what’s going on for the first time. You will no longer feel as exasperated or wonder what the hell is happening in this crazy world. You’ll finally understand.

Robert Spencer Defines the War Against Jihad

976_largeby Andrew E. Harrod:

“America is at war; and has been since at least September 11, 2001, but no one is really sure who with,” Robert Spencer writes in his recently released Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth about the War We’re In. Thankfully, Spencer’s important book makes a significant contribution in clarifying this catastrophic confusion.

That “Islam is a fundamentally peaceful religion” no different from…other faiths” in multicultural ecumenism, Spencer observes, forms a Western policy “cornerstone” and “cherished dogma of today’s political correct elites.” Yet President George W. Bush’s claim before Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, that al-Qaida terrorists “practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism” does not “become any truer for being oft repeated.”

“[U]unlike other modern faiths, Islam is a political religion” whose “comprehensiveness is often a matter for boasting among Islamic apologists” in comparison to “Christianity’s vague set of moral precepts,” Spencer writes. Such detail includes a “denial of basic rights…integral” to Islamic law despite attempted Muslim portrayals of sharia as “so amorphous as to defy characterization.” Islam’s death penalty for apostasy, for example, gives it something in common with cults, making leaving in one piece difficult.

Sharia interpretations “more compatible with Western pluralism and liberal democracy…have never gained any significant traction among Muslims.” However undesirable, centuries-old Islamic orthodoxy invariably and unsurprisingly has controlling legal authority.

“Jihad” in particular, “behind all the obfuscation and denial, is in fact primarily an Islamic doctrine of warfare,” drawn from the Qur’an’s “open-ended license to wage war against and plunder non-Muslims.” Despite various references to righteousness (e. g. Sura 5:8), the “Qur’an doesn’t teach that all are equal in dignity.” Rather, Islamic conversion can mean rejecting “nation and people as infidel” in favor of a “new loyalty instead to the supranational Islamic umma.”

Spencer offers plenty of examples, including Fort Hood terrorist Major Nidal Hasanhad a “broad tradition within Islamic teaching” justifying his killings with “numerous proponents.” Although “not the only understanding of Islam…even the larger number of Muslims who do not adhere to it have failed to work in any effective way to rein it in.” Accordingly, “Al Qaeda and other groups like it make recruits among peaceful Muslims” as “exponents of true and authentic Islam.” Unfortunately, faith fundamentals in Islam do not necessarily favor freedom over sectarian force.

Indeed, Muslim groups have no programs demonstrating “how the true Islam eschews violence against and hatred of unbelievers,” Spencer criticizes. Similarly, “over twelve years” after 9/11, no “sincere and effective effort within mosques to expose and report those who hold to the beliefs that led to those attacks” has developed. Groups like the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) “are ready with the condemnations after arrests and explosions, but why wait passively?” Muslim communities must “demonstrate (not just enunciate) their opposition to jihad terror Islamic supremacism,” Spencer demands. Any silent Muslim majority in an oft-proclaimed “religion of peace” must preemptively speak out, both for its own credibility’s sake and for the wider community’s security.

A “Jihad against Talking about Jihad” by Muslim groups and others, meanwhile, brands as an “irrational hatred of Muslims and Islam” any “resistance to jihad” in attempts at “demoralization and marginalization.” Objective discussion of Islam’s less savory aspects has become the “third rail of American public discourse.” Here “tuxedoed barbarians” like the writer Reza Aslan, an Islamic Republic of Iran apologist, play a role, along with leading officials like President Barack Obama, who pledged in his June 4, 2009, Cairo address “to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam.” Obama “didn’t explain where in the Constitution he had found this awesome new responsibility,” Spencer says.

Read more at IPT

Bill Maher: ‘Islam Is The Problem’

maherDaily Caller, By Jamie Weinstein:

Bill Maher went after Islam Friday night on his HBO show “Real Time.”

With the Nigerian Islamist terrorist group Boko Haram kidnapping hundreds of teenage girls to sell into slavery, the Sultan of Brunei establishing the repressive Sharia law in his country and Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s honorary degree being rescinded by Brandeis University, Bill Maher pointed his finger at Islam as a major problem in the world today.

“Islam is the problem, correct. All religions are the problem, but especially this one,” the ardent atheist Maher told some of his liberal guests who were offended by his attacks on the faith.

Earlier in the discussion of Islam, conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza argued that “there’s a civil war in the mind of the liberal.”

“On the one hand you’re a defender of individual rights and minorities and if this were the Catholic Church, you’d be all on it,” he explained. “But on the other hand you’re committed to multiculturalism and Islam is a victim and we don’t want to make the Muslims feel bad. And so these two impulses have got to be brokered, one against the other. And that’s why there is a protection of Islam. The problem isn’t the Muslims. The problem is all the multiculturalists on campus who protect and defend them.”

The ‘Brave German Woman’ and Europe’s Islam Question

CBN-Heidi-Mund-700-Club-450x280by :

Several are the important lessons learned from last year’s “Brave German Woman” incident.

Context: On November 10, 2013, a Muslim imam was invited to give the Islamic call to prayer inside the Memorial Church of the Reformation in the city of Speyer, Germany—a church dedicated to honoring Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation.

“When the brave German woman, whose real name is Heidi Mund, heard about the event, she prayed,” reports CBN News.  Not sure what she would do upon arrival, she grabbed her German flag emblazoned with the words “Jesus Christ is Lord” and headed for the concert:

“Until the imam started with his shouting [“Allahu Akbar!”], I did not really know what to do. I was just prepared for what God wants me to do,” she told CBN News.

Then the Muslim call to prayer began, and Heidi said she felt something rising up inside her.

“I would call it a holy anger,” she recounted. “And then I rose with my flag and I was calling and proclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord over Germany”…

And she repeated the words of Martin Luther in 1521 after he refused to recant his faith in scripture alone: “Here I stand. I can do no other” and “Save the church of Martin Luther!”

Video shows another concert-goer trying to calm her by saying, “This is a concert for peace.”

Mund can be heard responding in German, “No it’s not! Allahu Akbar is what Muslims scream while murdering people! Don’t be fooled! Don’t be fooled! This is a lie!”

She was thrown out of the church.

“They should have thrown the imam out and not me because I am a believer in Jesus Christ, but he serves another god. This Allah is not the same god. And this is not the truth.”

“This ‘allahu akbar,’ they use it when they kill people,” she argued. “This is, for me, worship to an idol, to their god. And when a Muslim calls ‘allahu akbar’ in a church, that means this church is not a church anymore, it’s a mosque.”

For more details on this story, check out CBN News’ various interviews and videos of and with Mund.

Now for some lessons concerning the significance of this anecdote:

Mund’s observations about the phrase “Allahu Akbar” are spot-on.  Islam’s war cry, signifying the superiority of Muhammad’s religion over all things, thetakbir (“Allahu Akbar”), is habitually proclaimed in violent contexts, specifically attacking and slaughtering non-Muslims, whether beheading “infidels” or bombing churches.

Muhammad himself used to cry it aloud prior to attacking non-Muslim tribes that refused to submit to his authority and religion.

Accordingly, Mund’s outrage at hearing an Islamic imam hollering out Islamic supremacist slogans is justified.   Proclaimed in a church, “Allahu Akbar”—which in translation literally means “Allah is greater [than X]”—means “Allahu is greater than the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, and Father of Christ.”

And assuming the imam proclaimed Islam’s credo or shehada as is standard in the Muslim call to prayer (that “there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”) that too is tantamount to declaring that the biblical God is false, and the message (or Koran) delivered by Muhammad—which includes a denunciation of Christ’s divinity, death, and resurrection—is true (see for examples Koran 4:157, 4:171, 5:17, 5:116, 9:30-31, 19:35).

This is precisely what the vandal who earlier painted in Arabic the phrase “Allahu Akbar” across the door of another German church likely had in mind.

Yet despite all this, despite the fact that only two or three generations ago, almost every Christian would have been incensed to hear a Muslim shouting Islamic slogans that by nature contradict Christianity inside a church, Mund was chastised by fellow Christians for her stand and kicked out.

Read more at Front Page

Egyptian ‘Jon Stewart’ Targeted Again

Bassem_YoussefBy Rachel Molschky:

Bassem Youssef is an Egyptian satirist with a television program which mocks the current political situation in Egypt and is extremely controversial. Somewhat similar to Jon Stewart’s style on The Daily Show, Youssef risks taking jabs at dangerous people and has paid greatly for it. His program has been taken off the air, he’s been arrested, and now someone has jammed the satellite signal in order to block his show.

The Associated Press reports that the network’s satellite carrier found small satellite transmitters as the root of the problem, and Spokesman Mazen Hayek said there was no way of knowing who was responsible.

“It is a form of terrorism,” Hayek told the Associated Press.

Youssef’s show is called “El-Bernameg” or “The Program” in Arabic and has poked fun at the Muslim Brotherhood, the local media and the Egyptian Army. He was arrested for criticizing Islam and then President Mohamed Morsi and is said to have cracked jokes throughout his five-hour interrogation.

On Twitter, he quipped about officers and prosecutors asking to take pictures with him (“maybe this is why they ordered my arrest?”), their lack of hospitality (“Nobody even brought us a glass of water”), and their lack of preparedness (“Now they are looking for a laptop with a . . . program to play the [offending] episodes but they can’t find one”). A judge eventually asked him to remove any tweets he made during questioning. He was later released.

No one escapes Youssef’s satire, as he teases both sides of the political spectrum, but all in good fun. More recently, he laughed about the Egyptian Army’s claim to have found a cure for AIDS and Hepatitis without scientific proof to back it up.

In the West, we are accustomed to such programs where politicians know they are subject to scrutiny and the resulting parodies and jokes on television. This is a freedom we take for granted. In countries where Islam is dominant, however, “democracy” means something different.

Even here, it is not acceptable to criticize Islam, and people who speak the truth about the violent religion are put on trial for hate speech (or authorities scrounge up some other charges), or face other consequences. Most people are too afraid to say a word against Islam or even joke about it, so while other religions can be and are scrutinized, Islam gets a free ride.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky with video

Preaching ‘Islamophobia’ to the Choir at Saudi-Funded Georgetown

varisco_danielBy Andrew Harrod:

“I don’t have any desire to debate Robert Spencer….I would never give someone like that a forum,” Hofstra University Professor Daniel Martin Varisco declared at Georgetown University on February 26, 2014.  Addressing the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Christian-Muslim Understanding (ACMCU), Varisco’s equally flawed outlooks on Islam and intellectual inquiry had disturbing implications for modern academia.

Prior perusal of the opening pages of Varisco’s 2007 Reading Orientalism:  Said and Unsaid did not raise hopes for his briefing “Khutba vs. Khutzpa:  Islamophobia on the Internet.”  In this book, Varisco analyzes leftwing intellectual Edward Said’s Orientalism and its legacy, expressing agreement “with most of Said’s political positions on the real Orient.”  Varisco reveals his discipleship of Said with condemnations of post-World War II United States having “become by stealth and wealth the neo-colonial superpower” in which a “neocon clique…engineered the wars” not just “against” Iraq but also Afghanistan. Varisco’s one-sided estimate of historical harms includes a “PhD cataloguing of what the West did to the East and self-unfillfulling political punditry about what real individuals in the East say they want to do to the West.”

Yet, Varisco writes, “Said hardly scratched the surface of the vast sewerage of racist and ethnocentrist writing, art, and cinema that for so long has severed an imaginary East from the dominating West.”  “In particular,” Varisco emphasizes,

almost anything that Muslims would consider holy has at one time or another been profaned by Western writers.  Perhaps the frustrated worldwide Muslim anger at Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses was emetic justice for centuries of vicious and malicious verbal abuse from the West, where this controversial best seller incubated.

Both matters of principle and practicality deter further reading of Varisco.  “Truth with a capital T does not exist for anyone,” Varisco nonsensically proclaims as one of his “own operational truths,” thereby placing in doubt Varisco’s views. Varisco’s attempts at humor also do not amuse, such as when he describes the book’s “anal citational flow of endnotes” designed to allow a person to “read for entertainment” Varisco’s turgid tome.

Nothing improved during Varisco’s presentation on “Islamophobia,” described in a Powerpoint image referencing a 1991 Runnymede Trust report as an “unfounded hostility” towards all things and persons Muslim.  One Powerpoint on “Combatting Islamophobia on the Internet” set a leveling tone with a recommendation of a “[f]ocus on interfaith efforts, noting that all religions have positive and negative aspects.”  This accorded with Varisco’s prior call for scholars to “be doing all we can to refute the notion that Islam is intrinsically more violent than other religions.”  “I am not saying that these things don’t happen,” Varisco conceded when showing a picture of a woman undergoing a sharia stoning to death.  Another Powerpoint, meanwhile, simply dismissed as “fallacy” controversies that “Muhammad was a pedophile and Islam is cruel to women.”

Varisco gave a historical overview of longstanding negative Western views of Islam.  He noted, for example, Dante’s depiction of Islam’s prophet Muhammad in the Inferno and unfavorable 19th century American comparisons of an emerging Mormon faith with Islam.  Varisco’s bias was evident when observing that John Smith fought Ottoman Turks before coming to America without ever analyzing whether Smith might have been justified to oppose Muslim aggression.  Varisco also reiterated his previously written scorn for an “allegedly Venerable Bede, who condemned invading Muslims of his time as ‘a very sore plague.’”  Why this single condemnation of marauding Muslims in France stopped at the 732 Battle of Tours discredited this pioneering English historian in Varisco’s estimation remained unexplained.

In discussing the 1797 American treaty with Tripoli, meanwhile, Varisco bizarrely claimed that “we were doing a lot of trade” with the Barbary States.  As any schoolboy should know, though, this treaty, including a tribute payment, was part of American trade protection efforts against Barbary pirate depredations scourging the Mediterranean for centuries.  Varisco then noted with a Powerpoint image America’s subsequent Barbary Wars resulting from the failure of diplomacy to dissuade the Barbary pirates from their attacks.  “Economics is always in there somewhere,” Varisco stated in a similarly bizarre fashion when discussing the United States’ first encounter with jihadists.

Turning to the present, Varisco condemned as “Islamophobic” the Clarion Project along with its film Obsession, the website Answering Islam, and Franklin Graham for having called Islam “evil.”  One particular focus of Varisco was the anti-Catholic writer Jack Chick who in his cartoon publications had wildly slandered the Catholic Church as Islam’s inventor.  Another emphasis for Varisco was evangelical Joel Richardson’s website Joel’s Trumpet with its apocalyptic predictions of an “Islamic Antichrist.”

The little discussed elephant in the room for perceptive “Islamophobia” observers during Varisco’s presentation, though, was “Islamophobe” Number One, Jihad Watch website founder Spencer.  Varisco cited a Spencer quotation from his book Inside Islam:  A Guide for Catholics listed at the website Spencer Watch. Varisco once again failed to explain why Spencer’s condemnations of Islam as an “often downright false revelation” and “threat to the world at large” were unacceptable. Varisco also noted a recent Jihad Watch entry criticizing his very Georgetown briefing.

Read more at Front Page

Andrew E. Harrod is a freelance researcher and writer who holds a PhD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a JD from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project, an organization combating the misuse of human rights law against Western societies. You may follow Harrod on twitter at @AEHarrod.


Over at Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer is laughing

The Rushdie Fatwa 25 Years Later

by Daniel Pipes
Feb 14, 2014
Cross-posted from National Review Online, The Corner

Twenty-five years ago today, Ayatollah Khomeini brought his edict down on Salman Rushdie. Iran’s revolutionary leader objected to the author’s magical-realist novel The Satanic Verses because of its insults to the Muslim prophet Muhammad and responded by calling for the execution of Rushdie and “all those involved in the publication who were aware of its contents.”

Salman Rushdie in 1989.

That Rushdie was born in India, lived in Britain, and had no significant connections to Iran made this an unprecedented act of aggression, one that resounded widely at the time and has subsequently had an enduring impact. Indeed, one could argue that the era of “creeping Shari’a” or “stealth jihad” or “lawful Islamism” began on February 14, 1989, with the issuance of that short edict.

If Rushdie, 66, is alive and well (if not exactly flourishing; his writings deteriorated after The Satanic Verses), many others lost their lives in the disturbances revolving around his book. Worse, the long-term impact of the edict has been to constrain the ability of Westerners freely to discuss Islam and topics related to it, what has come to be known as the Rushdie Rules. Long observation of this topic (including a book written in 1989), leads me to conclude that two processes are underway:

First, that the right of Westerners to discuss, criticize, and even ridicule Islam and Muslims has eroded over the years.

Second, that free speech is a minor part of the problem; at stake is something much deeper – indeed, a defining question of our time: will Westerners maintain their own historic civilization in the face of assault by Islamists, or will they cede to Islamic culture and law and submit to a form of second-class citizenship?

Most analyses of the Rushdie Rules focus exclusively on the growth of Islamism. But two other factors are even more important: Multiculturalism as practiced undercuts the will to sustain Western civilization against Islamist depredations while the Left’s making common political cause with Islamists gives the latter an entrée. In other words, the core of the problem lies not in Islam but in the West. (February 14, 2014)

Also see:

Islam: Silencing Its Critics with Violence

Under-Sharia-those-who-insult-Muhammad-or-300x225By Rachel Molschky:

Few dare to criticize the “religion of peace” for fear of a violent retaliation. Ironic? Not really, considering the fact that violence pervades the very essence of this “peaceful” religion. Case in point, the recent case in France of Abdelhakim Dekhar, who stands accused of four recent attacks, one being a shooting at a Paris newspaper office where he shot an assistant photographer. As usual, the mainstream media ignores the Muslim name and suggests the motive is “hazy.” However, Dekhar had written a letter complaining of “media manipulation,” that “evil” capitalism, and was angry about Syria among other things. These are all typical Muslim grievances.

The Islamic response to criticism is death. When there is no self-defense, and armed with no logical explanation in order to combat the critics, the only way out is violence. That’s why whenever there are “peaceful” protests, the placards Muslims proudly hold high call for our beheadings. If you’ve never witnessed this firsthand, there are countless photos to prove it. Men, women and children all parade around with signs calling for our savage murders. Why? Because we dared to criticize.

619545-childsign-225x300Yet criticism brings about change, which is how we progress as a society. Sometimes we progress a little too far and make excessive changes, but certainly some reform is a good thing. For example, some critics of Judaism will say that the punishment of stoning exists in the Torah. Gary T. Panell of Bible Christian discusses capital punishment in the Bible and offers his interpretation regarding the use of rocks to administer it: “As harsh as it may seem, using stones to kill someone, there was a practical side to it. Wherever you were, there would always be plenty of rocks.”

Guess there are a lot of rocks in the Muslim world.

No matter how you want to interpret those verses, the fact remains, Jews no longer “stone” people, which makes such criticism positively senseless. Furthermore, different denominations of the religion have come about as civilization has progressed, and people disagree over the meaning of this or that as well as the application of it in our lives today.

The same is true of Christianity. Martin Luther brought about the Protestant Reformation, and even the Catholic Church itself has made tremendous changes throughout the years and is not the same as it once was. There will always be critics of those changes. Sometimes the modifications may be a step in the wrong direction, but overall the Judaism and Christianity of today cannot be compared to the barbaric stonings and beheadings which not only exist in Islam today but are an intrinsic part of it.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

Stetson University & Amer Ahmed Support Islamic Religious Apartheid

20131121_4069318520_7a56be0a39By Alan Kornman:

On 10/30/13, Stetson Universities Cross Cultural Center and Multicultural Student Council presented a lecture on ‘Addressing Islamophobia: Proactive Efforts to Address Hate and Bias on and off Campus’  led by Amer F. Ahmed.

Amer F. Ahmed, Associate Director, Multi-Ethnic Student Affairs, University of Michigan  supports Islamic Religious Apartheid and called all non-Muslims a violent threat to Mecca.  Ms. Yolany Gonell, Director of Diversity & Inclusion stood silent as Mr. Ahmed was making these vile statements during his lecture.  Mr. Ahmed’s comments make a mockery of diversity and Inclusion.

Mr. Ahmed’s lecture was advertised as open to the public and all were welcome.  I had my video camera set up to document the event when Stetson Public Safety Officer Sgt. Casey told me I could not film under threat of arrest.

To follow is an exchange between Mr. Ahmed and myself focusing on the fact all non-Muslims are not allowed to enter Mecca and Medina.

Mecca and Medina Islamic Apartheid Cities – A Dialogue 

Audience member asks Mr. Ahmed:  “Is it true that your God is the same as our God, like the Christian God?”

Mr. Ahmed: “That’s what Muslims view the same God and we view our religion as an extension of the same traditions, so in the Islamic tradition it is believed that those who believe the teachings of the previous prophets are our brothers and sisters, because we are all worshipping the same God.  And its the same message that has come over and over again by all the prophets.”

I ask:  “If we are all brothers and sisters why is it illegal for non-Muslims to step foot in Mecca or Medina and not just during the Hajj, but we’re talking the whole city, its like apartheid on steroids.”

Mr. Ahmed responds:  “so Medina anyone can go into Medina, its Mecca that only Muslims can enter.”

I say:  “If we are all brothers and sisters why is that?”

Mr. Ahmed responds: “Because it has been a place that has been under attack in the past, and so it is a place which there are very sacred rituals partaken upon so its a holy sacred site, so if you just open it up it leaves room for those who can do things that might be problematic in the broader sense.”

I say:  “So your saying that non-Muslims are going to attack Mecca?”

Mr Ahmed says: “Its happened before, so (stops mid sentence).

I say: “So non-Muslims are not allowed in the city limits of Mecca because we are a threat.  I take offense at that because it is hateful and hurtful to me.”

Mr. Ahmed does not respond, moves on to another subject but says he will get back to this exchange.

Before I tell you the rest of the dialogue between Mr. Ahmed and myself lets do a little fact checking on Mr. Ahmed’s statements of fact.

1. Medina is open to non-Muslim (Lie):  According to the US Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs it says, “Non-Muslims are forbidden to travel to the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah.”

2.  Mecca is closed to non-Muslims under threat of arrest (True).

3.  Non-Muslims Attacked Mecca before: (Lie)  The last attack on Mecca was in 1979  by the devout Muslims of Juhayman al-Otaybi, who belonged to the powerful family of Najd.  There is nothing in the historical record validating Mr. Ahmed’s claim.

20131121_20111123_MeccaSign11The Mecca and Medina Islamic Religious Apartheid is a commonly accepted cultural practice by most every Mosque here in the United States.  Mosques across the United States encourage every Muslim to visit the Islamic Religious Apartheid Cities of Mecca and Medina even though they know it is illegal for Christians, Jewish, Hindu, Agnostics, and all non-Muslims to do the same.  Islamic Religious Apartheid is happening today despite all the talk that we non-Muslims are brothers and sisters of the Abrahamic traditions.

Mr. Ahmed,  true brothers and sisters would not practice Islamic Religious Apartheid like Islam does in Saudi Arabia. True Muslim brothers and sisters would scream from the roof tops and minarets this bigoted exclusionary practice be stopped.  True Muslim brothers and sisters would demand the opening of Mecca and Medina to all people.

Ahmer Ahmed realized in our exchange he exposed his heartfelt beliefs supporting the Mecca/Medina Islamic Religious Apartheid against all non-Muslims. Mr. Ahmed made these hate filled views in a failed effort to defend the 5th Pillar of Islam.

Read more: Family Security Matters 

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Alan Kornman is the regional coordinator of The United West-Uniting Western Civilization for Freedom and Liberty. His email is:

Defending Islam: The Height of Leftist Hypocrisy

By: Amber Pawlik

Ever since 9-11, Islam has been a topic of debate in many circles.  President George Bush announced that Islam is a “religion of peace.”  Leftists, though, in particular have convinced us that to criticize Islam is to be “intolerant.”  This has created a culture unwilling to call Islam for what it is.  Here is a list of common debate arguments in defense of Islam, usually given by leftists, and quick rebuttals to them, proving otherwise.


You are a racist if you condemn Islam.  

As soon as you go to criticize Islam, the first response you always get hit with is “you are a racist.”  This is not true.  Islam is an ideology not a race.  You can criticize Islam in the same way that you can criticize communism, liberalism, feminism, etc.   

In fact, the biggest victims of Islam are Muslims themselves.  Every Muslim I have ever met is bright and hard working.  It is unfortunate that Muslims are under the spell of Islam, which prevents them from making the kind of scientific and technological progress they clearly could otherwise make.


Christianity can be just as violent as Islam.  

When you point out the verses in the Koran which call for the murder of Christians and Jews, etc., or point out that Muslims are killing people in the name of Allah, the instant response you get is, “Christianity has violent passages too, and people have killed other people in the name of Christianity too.”  

All I have to say is:  and?  If people are using Christianity as a reason to kill innocent people, guess what:  they are wrong too.  You can’t excuse one evil by pointing to another evil.   

Besides that, there are no Christian nations right now that are responsible for killing 3000 Americans or 200 Spaniards.  It is the Islamic nations and organizations that are.   


It’s the wrong interpretation of Islam that is the problem.  

Leftists insist that the Koran isn’t bad; it is the “wrong interpretation” of the Koran.  I’m not sure how anyone can fail to correctly interpret statements like, 

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, Surah4:89, Nobel Koran) but I guess that’s just me.

When leftists say it is the “wrong interpretation” of Islam that is wrong, really what they mean is “why can’t Muslims just ignore the bad parts of the Koran?”  Leftists don’t understand the psyche of the person who takes things literally.  To them, things are just suggestions not commandments – even the law, as evidenced by the San Francisco mess.  

It’s not the wrong interpretation of the Koran that produces terrorists; it is an exact interpretation of the Koran that produces terrorists.


Most Muslims are nice people.  

The more emotional appeal is that most Muslims are nice, hard working people and criticizing Islam is to criticize these nice people.  Of course most Muslims are nice people.  The problem is in the leadership, i.e. people who are responsible for taking the Koran seriously and literally, not the naïve followers.   

It is not limited to leadership in the Middle East either. Representative Peter T. King said publicly while promoting his book Vale of Tears that he estimates 80-85% of the Muslim leadership in America supports “Islamic fundamentalism.”   

Islam is not benign.  To ignore this, being politically-correct, is to ignore a very large, deadly pink elephant in the room. 


Islam has produced scientific achievements.  

Lots of people insist that Muslim culture has produced various scientific achievements. The biggest “Muslim” achievement that they point to is that they supposedly discovered Algebra.  This isn’t true.  It wasn’t Muslims or even Arabs that invented Algebra:  it was the Iranians. The Iranians have had a very enlightened culture – one that radical Muslims have waged a war against, in an effort to Islamicize them (which you will never hear leftists condemn).   The Iranians also had their own religion, Zoroastrian, which was as opposite as you can get from Islam.    

Something else Islam defenders might point to as proof that Islam can produce scientific progress is a man named Razi, who they say was Muslim.  Razi made several findings in medicine.  But Razi, again, was not Arab or Muslim but Iranian.  In fact, he was so hostile to Islam that he wrote several books denouncing faith and upholding reason, and became a heretic.  Razi, an enlightened Iranian, was to the Muslim world what Galileo or Copernicus was to ours.  After treating these men of scientific achievement as heretics forced to live like gypsies, claiming them as proof that Islam can produce scientific achievement is a bit much.   

There is my short list of common arguments regarding Islam.  This brings me to what I believe is the biggest issue of our time and one of the largest hypocrisies. 

Leftists try to claim they are enlightened, sophisticated people, supporting the mind not faith – therefore denounce religion, especially Christianity.  Yet it is these very leftists that are most sympathetic to Islam: one of the most faith-based and anti-enlightened religions that has ever existed.   

Despite their theatrics, announcing they are intellectual, leftists are not enlightened or intellectual.  Genuine enlightenment came when men discovered reason and reality.  It started with one man:  Aristotle.  Accepting that reality was firm and external to man and that men can use reason to understand and explore it allowed for an explosion of scientific progress, technology, and civilization, as we know it.   

Read more at Faith Freedom