Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses the inaccuracies and falsehoods in the report on “Islamophobia” recently issued by the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses the inaccuracies and falsehoods in the report on “Islamophobia” recently issued by the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
The new CAIR-AMP “Islamophobia Network” report could be used as an example of the phenomena of projection in a psychology class.
Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, July 21, 2016:
A new report on the so-called “Islamophobia Network” has been released, authored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the leader of American Muslims for Palestine — two groups with ties to Hamas financiers and a vivid history of extremism, slander and deception.
Here are three facts about the authors:
Both are linked to Hamas financiers based on prosecutions by the U.S. government.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), as explained in our factsheet, has a history of Islamist extremism including links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, the Justice Department labeled CAIR an “unindicted co-conspirator” in a Hamas-financing trial and listed CAIR as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity.
More specifically, CAIR was listed by the Justice Department as a part of the Brotherhood’s covert “Palestine Committee” to support Hamas in the United States.
The other official author is the University of California-Berkeley Center for Race and Gender. If you look more closely, you’ll see that the responsible section of the center is the Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project. So, who was the real author from the University’s staff?
The aforementioned project is led by Dr. Hatem Bazian, chairman of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), co-founder of Zaytuna College and co-founder of Students for Justice in Palestine. Click either of those two links to learn about the history of Bazian and his organization.
Bazian’s AMP has extensive links to the same Brotherhood/Hamas circle that CAIR does. Congressional testimony from Dr. Jonathan Schanzer, a terrorism finance analyst for the Treasury Department from 2004 to 2007, is damning.
Schanzer outlines how AMP is intertwined with three now-defunct organizations known to have been fronts for financing Hamas. Though he did not accuse AMP of illegal activity, it is apparent that AMP is run by a collection of officials from the Hamas support network in the United States.
Bazian also promotes modernized versions of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion-type conspiracy theories that have been referenced by Islamists for decades. In his narrative it’s always about wealthy hidden hands that puppeteer the most powerful institutions from behind a curtain. He has taught his students at Zaytuna College that this “Islamophobia Industry” is a creation of a war-seeking, military-industrial complex that wants to kill Muslims for profit.
It is their financing that is suspect.
It is CAIR and AMP, not the “Islamophobia Network,” that is closely associated with extremist and even terrorist financing. As Clarion Project has reported, CAIR has raised money from dubious foreign sources in possible violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, in addition to their apparent violation of their tax-exempt status. There are also detailed reports outlining alleged money-laundering by CAIR to disguise its donors.
Clarion Project also reported the little-noticed fact that CAIR sued two adversaries and “was so desperate to keep their records hidden from the American public that they voluntarily dismissed the case and dropped the lawsuit regarding those charges.”
As for AMP, NGO Monitor found that it is incorporated in Illinois but not as a 501 (c)3. For whatever reason, AMP receives its funding through a separate tax-exempt organization with the same address named “Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation.” Neither organization’s filings can be found on Internet websites like Guidestar.
They believe in lying and media manipulation.
Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas lie all the time. Islamist texts regularly justify or even mandate deception, particularly when dealing with perceived adversaries of the Muslim world (as they surely view the “Islamophobia Network”).
Two of CAIR’s founders, including its current executive director, were at a secret Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood meeting in Philadelphia in 1993. The transcripts show the participants, including one of CAIR’s co-founders, emphasizing using deception to influence American public opinion and how to play tricks with semantics. There was no room for interpretation.
Federal prosecutors said in a court filing:
“From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists…the conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.”
CAIR has even coached supporters on how to manipulate media coverage.
The new CAIR-AMP “Islamophobia Network” report could be used as an example of the phenomena of projection in a psychology class. They are accusing their adversaries of running a well-funded, deceptive, interconnected network. They assume their opponents are doing this because that is exactly what they are doing.
Islamists and progressives both want the Founders to have said something different than what they really said.
CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, July 16, 2016:
When reflecting on the rich history of the city of Philadelphia, one might think of William Penn, Benjamin Franklin, the Liberty Bell, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution. The timeless principles of freedom and liberty speak not only to the Philadelphian but also more broadly to the American. Because of Philadelphia’s significance and contribution to America, its history has become a major target of revisionism. Despite having different motivations, Liberal-progressives and Islamists both share the common goal of turning our founding fathers into advocates of multiculturalism.
For Islamists it’s all about making the founding fathers supportive of Islam, and of course they mean political Islam. Philadelphia City Councilman Curtis Jones, Jr. is helping create that narrative by hosting an event in Philadelphia’s City Hall July 26, with Denise Spellberg, author of the controversial book titled Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an: Islam and the Founders. David F. Forte, Cleveland State University professor of law, lays out two important themes asserted in the book that reveal Spellberg’s prejudices:
1) that the founders’ references to “imaginary Muslims” led them to include other minorities, such as Jews, Catholic Christians, and Deists, as full citizens, and 2) that America is now in the grip of “Islamophobia,” and many Americans are attempting to “disenfranchise” Muslims from their rights as full citizens.
The ‘Islamophobia’ campaign has propagated a lot of nonsense, from ‘Islamophobia’accelerating global warming to the rewriting of a more ‘inclusive’ American history as Spellberg’s book seems to indicate. To think that Jefferson and the founding fathers included political Islam when they championed religious liberty is ridiculous. Religious liberty and Islamic law are incompatible because Islamic law prohibits and punishes beliefs that are in opposition to Islam. This multiculturalist narrative Spellberg is trying to sell is similar to that advocated by the Muslim Brotherhood linked Congressman Keith Ellison (first Muslim Congressman). Ellison was the one who took his oath of office by swearing in on the Quran owned by Thomas Jefferson, and tries to insinuate that because Jefferson owned a Quran it helped mold his views on religious liberty and toleration. A 2007 Seattle Times article reports Ellison’s take on swearing in on the Quran:
“It demonstrates that from the very beginning of our country, we had people who were visionary, who were religiously tolerant, who believed that knowledge and wisdom could be gleaned from any number of sources, including the Quran,” Ellison said in a telephone interview Wednesday.
“A visionary like Thomas Jefferson was not afraid of a different belief system,” Ellison said. “This just shows that religious tolerance is the bedrock of our country, and religious differences are nothing to be afraid of.”
In reality, Jefferson not only had some unflattering things to say about Islam but also got a taste of radical Islam from a conversation with the Ambassador of Tripoli at the time:
The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged 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 musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Besides Philadelphia City Councilman Curtis Jones, Jr. who are some of the other supporters of the event with Spellberg in Philadelphia? Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is one of the backers of the event. The Muslim Brotherhood in North America is dedicated to “destroying Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated.” CAIR has even given Spellberg an awardthat epitomizes her work that’s being used for the Islamist cause:
I-CAIR Faith in Freedom Award from the Council American-Islamic Relations, Cleveland, Ohio Chapter, “For promoting a better understanding of the history of religious freedom in America and for writing Muslims back into our nation’s founding narrative through the extraordinary and illuminating scholarly work, Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an: Islam and the Founders,” May 11, 2014.
Militant Islam Monitor.org provides information about some of the other event sponsors such as:
…They include Emerge Pac, the Universal Muslim Business Association, Masjid Masjidullah and ICPIC. The Islamic Cultural Preservation And Information Council which receives funding from the PA Council on the Arts among others.http://icpic.co/. EmergePac is a subsidiary of EmergeUSA which is headed by stealth Islamist lawyer Khurrum Wahid.”Emerge USA, despite its patriotic sounding name, has an extremely radical agenda based on terrorism and bigotry shrouded in the guise of political advocacy. The main individual behind Emerge USA is Khurrum Wahid, a South Florida attorney who has built his name on representing high profile terrorists. They include members of al-Qaeda and financiers of the Taliban. According to the Miami New Times, Wahid himself was placed on a federal terrorist watch list in 2011.“
The contact for the event is Imam Salaam Muhsin, who recently spoke at CAIR-Philadelphia’s Interfaith Press Conference after the Orlando massacre. The sponsors have a long list of Islamist ties to say the least. On the event/luncheon flyer it is also noted that it occurs during the week of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, advertising for their liberal fan base. This progressive/Islamist alliance is working together to reinterpret our nation’s founding fathers (and founding documents) in order to change the American narrative to fit their multiculturalist vision for the U.S. For the Islamists it’s all about using multiculturalism to insert political Islam/Sharia into society under the guise of religious liberty.
Breitbart, by Raheem Kassam, April 10, 2016:
The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has admitted he “got almost everything wrong” on Muslim immigration in a damning new report on integration, segregation, and how the followers of Islam are creating “nations within nations” in the West.
Phillips, a former elected member of the Labour Party who served as the Chairman of the EHRC from 2003-2012 will present “What British Muslims Really Think” on Channel 4 on Wednesday. An ICM poll released to the Times ahead of the broadcast reveals:
Writing in the Times on the issue, Phillips admits: “Liberal opinion in Britain has, for more than two decades, maintained that most Muslims are just like everyone else… Britain desperately wants to think of its Muslims as versions of the Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain, or the cheeky-chappie athlete Mo Farah. But thanks to the most detailed and comprehensive survey of British Muslim opinion yet conducted, we now know that just isn’t how it is.”
Phillips commissioned “the Runnymede report” into Britain and Islamophobia in 1997 which, according to both Phillips himself and academics across the country, popularised the phrase which has now become synonymous with any criticism – legitimate or not – of Islam or Muslims.
Durham University’s Anthropology Journal noted in 2007: “It has been a decade since the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia was established, a Commission that through its 1997 report, “Islamophobia: a challenge for us all” (“the Runnymede report”) not only raised an awareness of the growing reality of anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic hostility in Britain, but also marked the onset of what might be described as ‘the first decade of Islamophobia’. In doing so, the Runnymede report propelled the word ‘Islamophobia’ into the everyday common parlance and discourses of both the public and political spaces.”
Phillips says his new data shows “a chasm” opening between Muslims and non-Muslims on fundamental issues such as marriage, relations between men and women, schooling, freedom of expression and even the validity of violence in defence of religion. He notes – echoing an article on Breitbart London just two weeks ago which reveals a growing disparity between older and younger Muslims in Britain – that “the gaps between Muslim and non-Muslim youngsters are nearly as large as those between their elders”.
And while he is cautious to note that many Muslims in Britain are grateful to be here, and do identify with role models such as Hussain and Farah, there is a widening gap in society with many Muslims segregating themselves.
“It’s not as though we couldn’t have seen this coming. But we’ve repeatedly failed to spot the warning signs,” he admits.
“Twenty years ago… I published the report titled Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, we thought that the real risk of the arrival of new communities was discrimination against Muslims. Our 1996 survey of recent incidents showed that there was plenty of it around. But we got almost everything else wrong.”
His comments will come as a blow to those who continue to attack elements in British society who are concerned about Muslim immigration and integration, and in fact may even go some way to shoring up comments made by U.S. Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz seeking to slow down or pause the rate of Muslim immigration into the West.
“We estimated that the Muslim population of the UK would be approaching 2 [million] by 2020. We underestimated by nearly a million. We predicted that the most lethal threat to Muslims would come from racial attacks and social exclusion. We completely failed to foresee the urban conflicts of 2001 that ravaged our northern cities. And of course we didn’t dream of 9/11 and the atrocities in Madrid, Paris, Istanbul, Brussels and London.”
“For a long time, I too thought that Europe’s Muslims would become like previous waves of migrants, gradually abandoning their ancestral ways, wearing their religious and cultural baggage lightly, and gradually blending into Britain’s diverse identity landscape. I should have known better.”
And Mr. Phillips even acknowledges that the mass sexual grooming and rape scandals that are plaguing heavily Muslim populated towns across Britain are because of Muslim – not ‘Asian’ – men. He writes: “The contempt for white girls among some Muslim men has been highlighted by the recent scandals in Rotherham, Oxford, Rochdale and other towns. But this merely reflects a deeply ingrained sexism that runs through Britain’s Muslim communities” – in a nod to those who have long protested this to be the case in the face of political, media, and even police cover ups.
Even left wing columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown told him: “[W]e [liberal Muslims] are a dying breed — in 10 years there will be very few of us left unless something really important is done.”
Phillips comments: “Some of my journalist friends imagine that, with time, the Muslims will grow out of it. They won’t.”
And indeed he lays the blame at the feet of the liberal, metropolitan elite, media classes: “Oddly, the biggest obstacles we now face in addressing the growth of this nation-within-a-nation are not created by British Muslims themselves. Many of our (distinctly un-diverse) elite political and media classes simply refuse to acknowledge the truth. Any undesirable behaviours are attributed to poverty and alienation. Backing for violent extremism must be the fault of the Americans. Oppression of women is a cultural trait that will fade with time, nothing to do with the true face of Islam.”
“Even when confronted with the growing pile of evidence to the contrary, and the angst of the liberal minority of British Muslims, clever, important people still cling to the patronising certainty that British Muslims will, over time, come to see that “our” ways are better.”
In terms of solutions, Mr. Phillips opines on “halting the growth of sharia courts and placing them under regulation” ensuring that school governance never falls into the hands of a single-minority group, “ensuring mosques that receive a steady flow of funds from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia, however disguised, are forced to reduce their dependency on Wahhabi patronage” and an end to the “silence-for-votes understanding between local politicians and Muslim leaders — the sort of Pontius Pilate deal that had such catastrophic outcomes in Rotherham and Rochdale”.
Mr. Phillips’s comments echo those of the Czech president, and research from across Europe that revealed attitudes amongst Muslims on the continent have hardened. The younger the Muslim, the more likely they are to hold hard-line views, one recent study found.
What British Muslims Really Think is on Channel 4 at 10pm on Wednesday
National Review, by M. Zuhdi Jasser, April 6, 2016:
This past Good Friday, the Islamic Society of Wichita, Kan., invited a self-declared Hamas supporter, Sheikh Monzer Taleb, as a special guest for its fundraising event. Sheikh Taleb is a notorious figure in the Muslim community, bringing controversy — and hate — wherever he goes. That is, until Representative Mike Pompeo caught wind of the plans and took a stand, calling on the Islamic Society to cancel the event, to the ire of the group and some in the community.
Sheikh Taleb has proudly sung as part of a pro-Hamas group that calls for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people, even declaring on video: “I am from Hamas.” His other extremist ties are also significant and damning: In the 2008 terrorism-financing case against the Holy Land Foundation, Taleb was named an “unindicted co-conspirator” for his deep association with Hamas. The case resulted in guilty verdicts on all 108 counts against leaders of the Foundation.
All Americans have a duty to speak out, like Pompeo did, for if we stay silent, we give Islamists a pass to suffocate critical thinking inside Muslim communities. There is nothing more American, more pro-Islam, and more pro-Muslim than taking a stand against the extremist and anti-Semitic hate spewed by Islamist individuals like Sheikh Taleb. In fact, this tough love is what every Muslim community needs to pursue on its own, long before their elected representative have to intervene.
Marginalizing and exposing the ideas of Sheikh Taleb and others like him is crucial if we are to effectively counter Islamist ideology and radicalization. This is the sort of reform work the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) encourages. Before Islamic terrorists become hell-bent on using violence, extremist Islamist ideologues radicalize them. Islamist movements such as Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood reject the liberal secular democratic order and seek an Islamic state with sharia law, filled with ugly anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism.
This debate is not about silencing speech, but rather about exposing and defeating extremist Islamist ideas. From San Bernardino to Brussels, radical Islamism will never be defeated unless Muslims and non-Muslims alike expose it, confront it, and marginalize it, much as Mike Pompeo did in Wichita last month.
It seems obvious that Sheikh Taleb’s Hamas sympathies and connections would make any American Muslim organization hesitant to have anything to do with him, much less invite him as a special guest to an event. Particularly in today’s climate, one would think that the Islamic Society of Wichita would want to stay as far away as possible from Taleb. Better yet, one would hope they would protest his appearances at mosques around the country in order to truly convey their dedication to reforming the hateful ideas that radicalize Muslims in our communities.
Instead, the Islamic Society of Wichita was stubborn in its invitation, cancelling the event only when Pompeo expressed serious concern and community pressure mounted. Now, rather than admitting its mistake, the Islamic Society of Wichita has the temerity to play the victim, blaming Kansans for their “Islamophobia.” The Islamic Society is attempting to dodge responsibility and avoid the repercussions of its terrible and even dangerous decision. But the facts remain the same: The Islamic Society invited and was planning to fête a man who has supported Hamas not only in word but also in deed, by raising funds for the terrorist group. In this case, the Islamic Society of Wichita can blame only itself for increased tensions in the community.
The event featuring Sheikh Taleb was canceled, yet it is critical for Kansans and all Americans, both Muslims and non-Muslims, to take a long, hard look at some of the key instigators and ideologies of extremist sentiment: the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the other Hamas-sympathizing, Muslim Brotherhood–tied individuals and groups passing themselves off as mainstream.
— M. Zuhdi Jasser is the president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and the co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement. He is a former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander and the author of A Battle for the Soul of Islam.
Answering Muslims, by David Wood, March 22, 2016:
On March 22, 2016, multiple jihadists, under orders from the Islamic State (ISIS), carried out coordinated terrorist attacks in Brussels, Belgium. Dozens were killed, around 200 were injured. In this video, I explain what will happen in the near future as a result of this attack.
WND, by Pamela Geller, March 15, 2016:
Despite the continuing Muslim genocide of Christians in the Middle East and Africa, American Catholic leaders continue not only to turn a blind eye to jihad terror and the persecution of their fellow Christians, but are actively aiding and abetting the forces that are persecuting them. Last month, the entire student body of St. Petersburg Catholic High School in St. Petersburg, Florida, was called together to hear a deceptive presentation on “Islamophobia” from the notorious Ahmed Bedier, who openly supports the jihad terror group Hezbollah and has worked for the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Bedier’s address was ostensibly about fighting the supposedly rising level of “Islamophobia”; he also offered what he presented as a primer on Islamic culture. In it, he blamed the U.S. for ISIS, claiming that the bloodthirsty caliphate arose because we bombed innocent civilians in Iraq. He also called out Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, white people, Jews, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Ben Carson – all as examples of Muslim-haters – while proselytizing for Islam.
Bedier compared a Jewish podiatrist with Osama bin Laden, claiming that this podiatrist had weapons in his house and was planning to attack an Islamic center. He didn’t address the disparity between this one alleged attacker and bin Laden’s worldwide terror network. He dismissed the jihad terror group ISIS, which controls a territory larger than Great Britain and has attracted 30,000 foreign jihadis to its ranks, as “a few people.” He blamed the rise of ISIS on Syria’s Assad, claiming that when people demonstrated for freedom, Assad bombed the protesters and insisted that we are overstating the threat of Islamic terror groups, especially ISIS. We are spending too much on security and war, he said, and declared that we should be spending that money on alleviating poverty.
The real problem, said Bedier, is anti-Muslim bigotry. “Islamophobia,” he said, is all over TV, and no one is challenging it. He said that “Islamophobia” is just like anti-Semitism and the same thing will happen: We’ll have a Holocaust. He didn’t mention that FBI statistics show that anti-Semitic attacks are much more common than attacks on innocent Muslims. Nor did he address the Islamic texts and teachings jihadis use to justify violence.
Bedier also falsified history, claiming falsely that “Muslims were here even before America was founded.” He said that “some of Columbus’ navigators were Muslims – because he was from Portugal, and Portugal and Spain were controlled by and were led by Muslims for over 700 years until the Inquisitions happened. You can read more about that.” And if you do, you’ll discover that no Muslims accompanied Columbus. And to be completely accurate, it must be noted that Muslims did in fact play a role in early America – America fought its first and second foreign wars against the Barbary Pirates, who were Muslim jihad raiders, as memorialized in the Marine Hymn, “to the shores of Tripoli.” The first mosque wasn’t established in the U.S. until 1915, and relatively few mosques were founded before the 1960s, when the great hijrah to the West began in earnest.
Bedier’s lies didn’t stop there. He said that when the Muslims ruled Spain from the 700s until the 1490s, they allowed the Jews and Christians to worship freely: “The society could continue to be a Catholic society. Now compare that to what happened when the Europeans came to America.” He said that in contrast to how good the Muslims in Spain were to the Jews and Christians, it took a couple of hundred years for the Europeans to exterminate the Native Americans and eliminate them from their lands. He said: “Now they are limited to casinos.” This is nonsense. In reality, Jews and Christians could only live in peace in Muslim Spain if they submitted to Muslim hegemony, paid the jizya tax, and accepted the humiliating and discriminatory regulations that ensured their second-class status.
Bedier asked the 350 assembled students if they thought it would be fair to be called terrorists because of what Timothy McVeigh did, falsely connecting McVeigh with Catholicism and Christianity, which of course is erroneous since McVeigh was not a Christian at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing. And besides, no one is calling all Muslims terrorists anyway. He also showed the students pictures of Ahmed the Clock Boy in handcuffs, telling the kids how the incident of his fake clock/bomb and arrest showed anti-Muslim bigotry. He claimed that three Muslims had been murdered in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, by an “Islamophobe,” when actually the killer was a deranged man who was enraged over a parking dispute.
“Islamophobia” is not limited just to Trump and Carson, Bedier said. It also comes from the media. He challenged what he claimed were false media portrayals of Islam: Shariah, he said, is basically a code of ethics. He didn’t mention that it’s a code of ethics that calls for stoning for adultery, amputation of the hand for theft, the denial of equal rights to women and non-Muslims, and restrictions on speech. He claimed that there was no compulsion in Islam and that women were not forced to cover their heads. Tell that to Aqsa Parvez, who was murdered by her father and brother for refusing to wear the hijab – and the innumerable other girls and women who have been similarly victimized. By contrast to this supposed freedom from compulsion in Islam, he claimed that “secularism is a religion in Europe” and that Europe imposes its secularism on people of faith.
When he was asked if Muslim women have to walk a certain distance behind men, Bedier answered: “This is some of the stereotypes. If the women do happen walk behind the man, it’s not a protocol thing, it’s just the men are silly and they walk ahead. I see a lot of white guys walking ahead and their girls way behind. It doesn’t mean that he read that is a protocol somewhere or he’s following his teachings, he’s just being a guy. So it’s their male chauvinism. Yes, it exists worldwide. It’s not because of the faith; it’s because men are not being gentlemen.” This was ridiculous: He was relying on the ignorance of his audience, counting on them not to know how Islam institutionalizes the subjugation of women.
Bedier claimed that the only difference between Muslims and Christians is the status of Jesus. “Jesus is a part of our faith,” he said. “Muslims believe in Jesus, son of Mary” and that Jesus was born of a virgin. “We don’t believe it because it’s popular,” he said, “we believe it because it is written in the Quran.” He said that the Quran was the only sacred book (other than the New Testament) that confirms that Mary is from G-d – that Mary is the mother of Jesus, that there was a virgin birth, and that Jesus is from G-d.
In a dig at Jews and Judaism, Bedier said: “As much as Ted Cruz and others would like to talk about Judeo-Christian values, you realize the Jewish faith did not accept Jesus Christ as the messiah, right? You understand that? If the Jewish people accepted Jesus as the Messiah then they would be Christian, correct? So for us, we accept Jesus and the message of Jesus; the difference is that we don’t view Jesus as divine or part divine, meaning we don’t believe Jesus is one with G-d in the Holy Trinity.”
Bedier said that Muhammad was the founder of Islam, but that in the Quran G-d talks about Jesus five times more than he talks about Muhammad. “We believe that Mary is highly regarded. We have an actual chapter in the Quran called Mary. My daughter is named Miriam after Mary. Mary is very loved in the Quran by Muslims; we just don’t see her as divine or that she somehow delivered G-d’s Son. We highly respect Jesus. We follow his teachings and we believe Jesus will return before the end of times. We don’t believe Muhammad is going to return at the end of times, we believe that Jesus will actually return before the end of times and will unite the believers together.”
This was open proselytizing for Islam, especially in light of the fact that the students had certainly not studied Islam’s critique of Christianity or been given any ways to counter it.
In sum, his presentation (unsurprisingly) was pure propaganda and completely one-sided, and nothing short of a disgrace. No one should be surprised by that. Bedier has a long history of extremely controversial associations. According to Discover the Networks, as far back as 2002, Bedier was the outreach director for the Islamic Society of Pinellas County, “a mosque whose website features material calling for violence against Jews. Moreover, he has cultivated relationships with organizations and individuals connected to anti-Israel terrorist groups overseas, including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and Hezbollah. In February 2003, Bedier began working as communications director for the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). This was subsequent to CAIR’s involvement in the funding of Hamas, which had taken place prior to December 2001, at which time Hamas’ American financing wing, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), was shut down by the U.S. government. Also in February 2003, the Tampa-based terrorist and former University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian was taken into custody by the FBI – indicted for his leadership role within Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Bedier became Al-Arian’s ‘unofficial spokesman,’ holding press conferences where he voiced concern about the government’s treatment of the professor, and allowing his radio program to be used as a propaganda vehicle for al-Arian’s family and his PIJ colleagues.”
On his radio show, Bedier has given considerable airtime to guests who praised the jihad terror group Hezbollah.
Bedier’s association with CAIR is significant. It is a matter of public record that CAIR is “an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case – so named by the Justice Department. CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror.
It is disgraceful that a Catholic school would host such an event, but not surprising. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) recently launched a “National Catholic-Muslim Dialogue,” partnering with pro-Shariah groups linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood: the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The pope insists that the Quran teaches peace. St. Petersburg High School is just following along.
Still, its leaders should have more discernment and moral courage. The principal of St. Petersburg High School is Father Richard Rosen; his phone number is (727) 344-4065. Politely contact him and ask him why he allowed someone with so many ties to terror as Bedier to address the school. I called, but Rosen would not take my call. I was referred to Sister Marie Daniel, the school’s marketing director, who confirmed that Bedier’s presentation did happen and said she would try to have someone get back to me. No one did, of course.
If Rosen had had the courage to take my call, I would have asked him these questions:
1. When you invited Bedier, were you aware of his connections with CAIR, and of CAIR’s connections to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood – established by the Department of Justice?
2. When you invited him, were you aware of his work as a spokesman for Sami Al-Arian, an admitted leader of the terror group Palestinian Islamic Jihad?
3. When you invited him, were you aware that he has featured supporters of the terror group Hezbollah on his radio show?
4. If you were not aware of those connections when you invited him, would you invite him again now that you know of them?
5. What were your impressions about what Bedier said? Do you endorse his message – particularly his claim that “Islamophobia” is a legitimate problem, rather than a term invented to intimidate people into thinking it wrong to oppose jihad terror?
6. Do you plan to bring in a spokesman to discuss the reality of the global jihad threat or the Muslim persecution of Christians? If not, why not?
I hope Rosen will answer these questions. His students, and their parents, deserve answers, rather than Islamic proselytizing followed by stonewalling.
The Hill, by Jim Hanson, Feb. 24, 2016:
When did standing up for basic human rights become hate speech? The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) can’t seem to tell the difference any more. It was once a premier civil rights organization instrumental in taking down the Ku Klux Klan. Now it attacks those who profess unpopular or politically incorrect opinions. The latest target is the Center for Security Policy (CSP) for our work exposing and opposing Islamist groups. For this they are adding us to their annual list of “hate groups”.
CSP stands for freedom and liberty against a collection of groups that really do “hate”. We believe that all people should be able to live freely, but the radical Islamist groups do not. The premier institute of Islamic thought is al-Azhar University in Egypt and it publicly stated that even ISIS was still part of Islam. We should not be censored for pointing that out and that we differ from the Islamists on numerous other human rights issues as well.
We believe women are equal citizens. They believe women are property whose testimony in court counts less than a man’s.We believe homosexuals have a right to live without fear. They believe homosexuals should be hung or tossed off rooftops.
We believe young girls are humans with full rights. They believe in female genital mutilation, honor killings and child brides.
In what crazy mixed up world are we the bad guys for making this clear? Loving the freedoms all people are endowed with by their creator is an embodiment of American values. The Islamic law, sharia, they look to impose is an embodiment of subjugation. Too many Muslims actually think shariah should be supreme over our Supreme Court and the entire Constitution. CSP vigorously opposes this and we will speak out against it, and we hope others will add their voices.
The Islamist groups have made some unlikely allies on the political Left, like the SPLC. Together they are trying to suppress free speech by calling it Islamophobia. A phobia is an irrational fear, but the horrors perpetrated by the violent Islamists are all too real as are the attempts by their allies to bring customs abhorrent to free people here.
We will continue to speak out strongly in support of the freedoms that make this country great. It is love of those freedoms, not “hate” that leads us to call out those who truly deserve that moniker. The Islamists oppress women, homosexuals, non-believers and they are using violent and civilizational means to impose their will on all of us. CSP believes in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Hanson is the executive vice president for the Center for Security Policy.
Fox News, by Fred Fleitz, Feb. 19, 2016:
This week, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) named my organization, the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a “hate group” because of our work highlighting the threat from radical Islam. CSP will join other conservative groups such the Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel and WorldNetDaily, all of which SPLC has smeared by listing them alongside neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups.
The SPLC is best known for its work decades ago fighting legal battles against segregation in the South. But it long ago morphed into a far left group with one purpose: manufacturing material to slander conservatives for use by the news media and on the Internet.
CSP President Frank Gaffney has been on another SPLC hate list for several years along with American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray, Accuracy in Media President Cliff Kinkaid (who SPLC has singled out for challenging global warming), Robert Spencer (the founder of director of Jihad Watch blog), Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin (executive vice president of the Family Research Council), WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah and other conservatives. Joining them on this list are an assortment of neo-Nazis, KKK members and white supremacists.
Dr. Ben Carson was placed on a SPLC “extremist watch list” in 2014 because of statements he made in defense of traditional marriage. But after a public outcry, the SPLC was forced to withdraw this designation and issue an apology to Carson in February 2015.
Among the many false claims in the SPLC’s new list of hate groups is that Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy have been banned from participating in the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and that Gaffney’s banishment from CPAC “probably earns him points with Trump.”
Although CPAC and the Center have had some differences in the past, this is no longer the case. Gaffney and the Center were present at CPAC last year and will have an expanded presence in 2016.
I will be speaking at CPAC 2016 conference next month on behalf of the Center on the Iranian and North Korean missile programs.
To show how sloppy the SPLC’s research is, a 2015 SPLC report noted that Gaffney and the Center were present at CPAC’s 2015 conference and that the Center was a sponsor.
As ridiculous as the SPLC hate lists may sound, they often are taken seriously by the liberal media. These lists almost had deadly consequences in 2012 when Floyd Corkins, a volunteer at a gay-rights group, entered the office lobby of the Family Research Council with the intention of killing as many of the Council’s employees as possible because of the organization’s opposition to same-sex marriage.
Corkins shot and injured a building manager before he was disarmed. He decided to launch a killing spree against the Family Research Council and another conservative organization after he read about their opposition to gay marriage in the SPLC’s hate lists.
While SPLC regularly lumps conservatives with neo-nazis and white supremacists for being anti-gay, anti-immigrant, Islamophobes, white nationalists or for miscellaneous hate (such disbelieving in global warming), it refuses to put liberal individuals and groups on their hate lists.
For example, the SPLC had nothing to say last summer when left wing groups like MoveOn.org, the Daily Kos, Credo and the National Iranian American Council attacked Jewish congressmen who opposed the nuclear deal with Iran like Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) by questioning their loyalty to this country.
Elliot Abrams decried this bigotry in an August 10, 2015 article in The Weekly Standard:
“The basic idea is simple: to oppose the president’s Iran deal means you want war with Iran, you’re an Israeli agent, you are in the pay of Jewish donors, and you are abandoning the best interests of the United States. So Dan Pfeiffer, senior political adviser to Obama until this winter, tweeted that Senator Charles Schumer—who announced his opposition to the Iran deal last week—should not be Democratic leader in the Senate because he “wants War with Iran.”
SPLC also has been silent on a growing anti-Semitism on the left and how American colleges are ignoring violence against Jewish students in Israel and the United States.
On the other hand, the SPLC has joined President Obama in jumping on the fraudulent Islamophobia bandwagon. That’s why CSP and Gaffney caught its attention.
I join Frank Gaffney and everyone at the Center for Security Policy in strenuously condemning discrimination, mistreatment or violence against Muslims and members of any religious group.
The Islamophobia charges made against CSP and other critics of radical Islam have nothing to do with hate or bigotry – they are a ploy by Mr. Obama, American Muslim groups and liberal groups to sidestep how Islamist extremism represents, as American Islamic Forum for Democracy President Zuhdi Jasser has put it, “a problem within the house of Islam.”
This problem is the global jihad movement which is an ideology at war not just with modern society but also with the majority of the world’s Muslims.
This is the real hate: Islamic supremacists cloaking their intolerance and hatred towards anyone who rejects their extremism – Muslims and non-Muslims – as protected religious practice. This hate includes brutalizing and killing groups that the SPLC claims to protect: women, LGBT individuals and racial and ethnic minorities.
The SPLC designated Frank Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy as “haters” because of our work to publicize the threat posed by to the supremacist Islamic shariah doctrine, a threat that President Obama and liberal groups refuse to confront or even name. They are in denial about this threat and instead condemn as bigots anyone who tries to address it.
This was crystal clear when President Obama on February 3 visited a mosque in Baltimore with known terrorist ties but refuses to meet with Muslims like Dr. Jasser who is leading an Islam reform movement that rejects Islamist radicalism and ISIS.
American leftwing groups like SPLC have also stubbornly ignored flagrantly hateful statements by some American Muslim groups.
There was a glaring example of this after the San Bernardino shooting when Hussam Ayloush, the Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), told CNN’s “New Day,” “some of our own foreign policy, as Americans, as the West have fueled that extremism. … We are partly responsible.”
In May 2004, Ayloush said the U.S. war on terror was a “war on Muslims,” adding his belief that the 9/11 attacks were committed because of “the U.S.’s unconditional support of Israel.” The U.S. is Israel’s “partner in crime” against the Palestinians, Ayloush explained.
How can a supposed civil rights organization like the SPLC give Ayloush and CAIR a pass on such hateful statements and actions?
How can it not speak out against growing anti-Semitism on the left and violence against Jewish students in Israel and the United States?
One reason is that the SPLC is not a civil rights organization – it is a far left advocacy group that tries to discredit its political enemies on the right with incoherent hate lists that wrongly associate them with notorious bigots to advance a liberal agenda. This is consistent with #12 of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
SPLC also demonized conservatives with bogus hate charges because it has found this kind of fearmongering to be very lucrative. According to the SPLC’s 2014 tax return, this non-profit organization had $54 million in revenue and $315 million in assets.
Back in 2000, an investigative report into the SPLC’s activities was published by Harper’s Magazine titled The church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance. It described the SPLC and its activities as “essentially a fraud” that “shuts down debate, stifles free speech, and most of all, raises a pile of money, very little of which is used on behalf of poor people.”
Perhaps the main reason the SPLC has been able to raise such huge sums because its president, Morris Dees, is so skilled at using scare mongering mailings for fund raising that in 1998 he was inducted into the Direct Mailing Association Hall of Fame.
Based on its 2010 tax return, the liberal website Daily Kos criticized the SPLC in 2012 for its enormous wealth, offshore bank account in the Cayman Islands, and ownership in several foreign corporations.
The author of this article asked, “What I’m very curious to learn is how keeping hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars in assets, several offshore bank accounts and part ownership in foreign financial firms in any substantive way addresses poverty in America.”
I believe the SPLC’s new focus on Islamophobia is because the organization has identified attacking critics of radical Islam as the ultimate money pot. For example, Saleh Abdulla Kamel, a Saudi banker believed to have been a financer of Usama bin Laden, gave $10 million to Yale University in 2015 to build an Islamic law center.
Given the SPLC’s lack of scruples, greed and offshore operations, I believe it is very likely that this group is receiving funding from Gulf state billionaires like Kamel to discredit anyone who criticizes radical Islam and the global jihad movement.
The news media must stop being manipulated by the SPLC’s calumny of its political enemies.
Reporters should realize that an organization which attacks all critics of radical Islam as Islamophobes, refuses to mention the extremism and intolerance of radical Islamist groups, and is silent on the growing anti-Semitism on the left and violence against Jewish university students cannot be considered a neutral and authoritative source.
The media also needs recognize that the SPLC’s hate lists which lump Ben Carson, Frank Gaffney, Cliff Kinkaid and organizations like the Family Resource Council, WorldNet Daily and the Center for Security Policy with neo-Nazis and white supremacists are utter nonsense.
The press should instead be investigating the SPLC’s enormous wealth, anonymous funders and how it is poisoning the public debate in this country to advance a liberal agenda and to enrich itself.
Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy, a Washington, DC national security think tank. He held U.S. government national security positions for 25 years with the CIA, DIA, and the House Intelligence Committee staff. Fleitz also served as Chief of Staff to John R. Bolton when he was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security in the George W. Bush administration. Fleitz specializes in the Iranian nuclear program, terrorism, and intelligence issues. He is the author of “Peacekeeping Fiascos of the 1990s: Causes, Solutions and U.S. Interests” (Praeger, May 30, 2002).
Author Deborah Weiss outlines threats to freedom of expression in the US, Canada, UK and elsewhere instigated by the OIC and enforced by the Obama administration and others.
Clarion Project, by Ryan Mauro, Feb. 9, 2016:
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its “moderate” image is suffering from a self-inflicted wound now it has become intertwined with the Muslims of the Americas, a radical anti-Semitic front for the Jamaat ul-Fuqra terrorist group.
CAIR’s Massachusetts chapter now shares an official with MOA and two CAIR officials spoke at MOA’s International Islamophobia Conference.
The Massachusetts chapter of CAIR recently chose MOA’s general counsel, Tahirah Amatul Wadud, as a board member. CAIR, a U.S.Muslim Brotherhood entity banned for its own terror links in the UAE, wisely omitted mention of MOA. It described her generically as a “general counsel for a New York Muslim congregation.”
Wadud reportedly posted an article by MOA’s Pakistan-based leader,Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, on her Facebook claiming the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) is a puppet of the British government and a Jewish conspiracy perpetrated the attacks on Pearl Harbor and September 11, 2001. The Clarion Project was the first to report on the inflammatory article.
“There was no need for America to go to war against Hitler. Hitler was not the enemy of America or the American people. There was a mutual animosity between Hitler and the Jews. So, the American people paid a very heavy price for fighting someone else’s war,” Gilani wrote.
Two CAIR officials spoke at MOA’s InternationalIslamophobia Conference, which included a poster featuring the faces of the “American Taliban” that included Clarion Projectnational security analyst Ryan Mauro. They were CAIR-Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid and CAIR-ArizonaExecutive Director Imraan Siddiqi. Walid was one of the CAIR officials who have questioned whether Muslims should honor fallen U.S. servicemen on Memorial Day, sparking a backlash from Muslims who appreciate the U.S. military.
Jamaat ul-Fuqra is led by Gilani. It is best known for a series of terrorist attacks and plots in the 1980s and early 1990s and for setting up “Islamic villages” across the country, including at least two that were shut down by the authorities. These “villages” are known to have been used for guerilla warfare training. Fuqra now goes primarily by the name of Muslims of the Americas (MOA), among other names. The group says it has 22 such “villages” in the U.S.
The Clarion Project obtained video of female members receiving basic paramilitary instruction in military fatigue at its “Islamberg” headquarters in New York. The date of the footage is cut off, only stating “Jan. 28 20,” presumably meaning it was made in 2000 or after. The best explanation MOA members have come up with is that it was a “self-defense class.”
View the video here:
The Clarion Project identified a Fuqra “village” in Texas in 2014 and retrieved an FBI intelligence report from 2007 that stated MOA “possess an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns overseas and within the U.S.” and “the documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the U.S. Government.”
The FBI also said “members of the MOA are encouraged to travel to Pakistan to receive religious and military/terrorist training from Gilani.” In 2001, ATF Special Agent Thomas P. Gallagher testified in court that “individuals from the organization are trained in Hancock, N.Y., and if they pass the training in Hancock, N.Y., are then sent to Pakistan for training in paramilitary and survivalist training by Mr. Gilani.”
After Clarion Project identified the Texas site and published the FBI report, a dozen Muslim groups have signed a statement calling for Fuqra’s designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Of course, CAIR isn’t one of them. CAIR actually came to Fuqra/MOA’s defense.And now CAIR and Fuqra have shared leadership through CAIR-Massachusetts and hold events together.
MOA’s International Islamophobia Conference took place at the Muslim Community Center of the Capital District in Schenectady, New York. CAIR-Arizona Executive Director Imraan Siddiqi is listed as a member of the Board of Directors, indicating he played more than a speaking role in setting the MOA event up.
The MOA’s event featured delegates representing the U.S., Canada, Pakistan, Senegal, India, Taiwan, Bangladesh and Egypt. Siddiqi was the delegate representing India. MOA flyers also list headquarters in Caracas, Venezuela and Las Lomas, Trinidad & Tobago. The MOA claims it had nearly 300 attendees and thousands watched online. It announced it would start a new political coalition named the “International United Muslim Forum.”
Ironically, MOA has tried to excuse itself from its terrorist and criminal history by claiming that it was infiltrated by Wahhabist/Muslim Brotherhood operatives who were sent to undermine Sheikh Gilani. It even claims that one operative was a shape-shifter who could go “through physical changes before speaking to people as if he were Sheikh Gilani.”
Breitbart, by Neil Munro, Jan. 27, 2016:
Fox News and Google have invited three YouTube personalities to ask questions at the Jan. 28 GOP debate — including a Muslim advocate who describes Donald Trump as a bigot and who visually portrayed him as being in agreement with national socialist Adolf Hitler.
“We have a presidential candidate whose loudest message reeks of hatred and Islamophobia… turning on the news now is scary, and oftentimes, humiliating,” the Muslim woman, Nabela Noor, says in a December YouTube video.
She admits to becoming a Muslim political activist amid the growing criticism of Islam’s doctrines. “The current social environment for Muslims today is not safe or just… as a Muslim American, I felt like I needed to use my voice,” she claimed.
Noor also urged her YouTube viewers to rally against critics of Islam. “I’m so thankful for those who speak up and out against anti-Islamic speech and ideologies. Our community needs more allies like you, but we have a long way to go,” she said.
The two companies announced Tuesday afternoon that the anti-Trump Muslim advocate would be allowed to play a role in the debate.
Google is teaming up with the Fox News Channel for the final Republican debate in Iowa on Thursday, January 28, 2016, and integrating three new components into the debate to help people get informed before they head to the polls, including a way to hear directly from candidates on Google; real-time Google Trends data; and questions from three of YouTube’s most prominent voices—Nabela Noor, Mark Watson, and Dulce Candy — who will join the moderators in the debate to ask the candidates a question on an issue that matters to them and their communities.
The Republican National Committee also approved the choice of Noor, an LA.-based press aide for YouTube, Jackie Cavanagh, at MPRM Communications, told Breitbart. “I believe” she was chosen by YouTube, with help from the RNC and Fox, she said.
“YouTube creators were selected in collaboration with Fox based on things such as audience size and their ability to bring a new, fresh perspective to the most important issues of our time. Fox informed the party/candidates of the format,” said a p.r. person.
Allison Moore, a press secretary for the RNC, told Breitbart that “We had nothing to do with that.”
Irena Briganti, a spokeswoman for Fox, also did not respond.
In December, Trump announced he would restrict the immigration of Muslims until the jihad problem can be addressed. “It is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” said Trump.
The statement came 14 years after Islamic jihadis killed 3,000 Americans and destroyed the Twin Towers in New York, and after many other jihadis launched or tried to launch a series of attacks across the United States.
In her videos, Dulce Candy, the invited Latino questioner, said she was brought fromcentral Mexico to the United States while a young girl. She later joined the U.S. military and served in Iraq. The press announcement described Candy:
With over 2 million subscribers on her YouTube channel, Dulce is a top YouTube beauty, fashion and lifestyle influencer. The only thing more impressive than her fanbase is her story: she immigrated to the United States from Mexico at age 6 and served in the armed forces in Iraq. Today, she’s a proud U.S. citizen, mother, and entrepreneur who serves as a role model for latinas, women, and more.
Noor is described in the company anouncement as well:
Born in New York, Nabela is a 24 year old Muslim American whose parents immigrated from Bangladesh. As an up-and-coming beauty creator with over 140,000 subscribers, Nabela hasn’t shied away from social issues. In a recent video, she spoke about being called a “terrorist” in elementary school after 9/11 and emphasized the importance of tolerance above all.
The perspective of the Muslim woman, Noor, has been shaped by her Bangladeshi immigrant parents, who were paired off by their parents in an arranged marriage as teenagers, aged 17 and 14.
These Bangladeshi Muslim parents migrated to the United States — while hiding am anchor-baby pregnancy — and later kept Noor in the house for many years to prevent her from integrating with American society. “Growing up, we weren’t allowed out much, our parents wanted to preserve our culture at all costs,” she said. They even refused to let her date a man, even after she had gone to college, Noor said in a biographical video. The parents also arranged a marriage for Noor’s older sister. Her mother still wears a head-covering to mark her as a loyal Muslim.
Aspects of Islamic culture remain part of Noor’s personality, under the outward appearance of an American fashionista.
For example, Noor argues that Muslims are individually and collectively insulted when many Americans’ offer sincere and well-argued criticism of Islam’s violent doctrines — for example, jihad, bans against free speech, the death penalty for quitting Islam, sexual subordination of women, opposition to democracy and the separation of mosque and state, etc., etc. That bigoted claim of injury from free speech echoes the demand from orthodox Islam that critics of Islam be silenced – by force if needed – and that the status or honor of each Muslim is damaged if they fail to fight against any criticism of Islam by non-Muslims.
So Noor claimed:
To be hateful and Islamophobic has become so common that it is proudly displayed all around us, online, on the news, and in politics. it is dehumanizing and it hurts. It is hard not to see a bumper sticker of a bigoted presidential candidate and not feel personally attacked when his entire campaign rests on the backs of Muslim-Americans. Where there should be messages of hope and tolerance, there are messages being spread of fear and hate, thus breeding violence.
In contrast, Western Christians and non-Christians try to treat criticism of ideas, such as Christianity’s claim that unborn humans deserve the right to life, or the merits of any particular presidential candidate, as a problem to be solved by facts, logic, free-speech, and compromise. That’s fundamentally different from Noor’s Islamic-style, only-one-winner fight over honor, pride, and supremacy.
That only-one-winner, zero-sum attitude often pushes Muslims to escalate debates into shouting matches and threats. Noor, for example, showed an image linking Trump and Hitler, which suggests that Trump’s criticism of Islam’s jihad ideology is so morally reprehensible that it is equivalent to actually murdering six million Jews, plus at least 10 million Slavic Russians, plus millions of other victims of Hitler’s socialism-for-Aryans Nazi ideology.
In fact, much to the embarrassment of Muslim advocates in the United States, that aggressive aspect of Islam was admired by Jew-hating, left-wing Hitler, who naturally also hated Christianity’s peacefulness, reason and emphasis on individuals’ conscience.
Noor also described criticism of Islam as “Islamophobia,” as if only the existence of a nationwide mental-disease could explain why Americans criticize jihad or child-marriagesor the murder of captured Christians or the murders of homosexuals or the murder of a seventh-century poet.
That term, “Islamophobia,” was developed by Islamic advocates to help their allies stigmatize critics of Islam. Generally, Western advocates do not describe their critics as mentally diseased, but as illogical, selfish, or misinformed.
In her video, Noor also tried to argue that Trump’s implied criticism of the violence associated with Islam — likely, including the 9/11 atrocity, the San Bernardino murders, and many other recent jihad attacks — is somehow causing more attacks by Americans against Muslims in America. She did not supply evidence, but did show a newspaper clipping that was actually about a Muslim in Detroit who stabbed two non-Muslims after asking them if they were Muslims.
“Nick Loussia, Deputy Chief of Police for the Southfield Police Department, said [the stabber] ‘is Muslim, and asked the victims what religion they were’ before allegedly attacking them,” said a report at MLive.com.
But Noor portrayed the Muslim-against-not-Muslim jihad attack as actually caused by Americans’ fear of Muslim attacks
“The fear-mongering tactics are a direct cause of hate-violence against Muslims and that makes being a Muslim in America today very, very scary,” she claimed. Noor did not mention any of the many, many, many attacks by Muslims against non-Muslims in America.
She did, however, try to argue that the many Islam-inspired attacks are not Islamic. ‘There are people out there that manipulate our texts to serve their own sick twisted agenda,” she said, without trying to explain how ISIS violates Islamic texts, or trying to disavow the many commandments for jihad in the Koran.
IBD Editorials, Jan. 5, 2016:
Hype: As the attorney general threatens to prosecute Americans for anti-Muslim hate crime, Muslims are faking anti-Muslim hate crimes across the country to prop up the fiction that Muslims are victimized in the U.S.
The latest fabrication involves the torching of a Houston mosque on Christmas Day. The arson was quickly seized on by the national media and Muslim-rights groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which demanded that police investigate it as a hate crime.
“We urge law enforcement authorities to investigate a possible bias motive for this fire,” CAIR’s Houston chapter said in a statement.
Federal authorities did investigate, and they collared a suspect. Sorry, CAIR, he’s not a Muslim-hating Trump supporter. He’s a Muslim.
Not only that, he’s a longtime member of the damaged Islamic Society of Greater Houston mosque, where he prayed five times a day, seven days per week.
Last Christmas, a similar incident was reported at a mosque in Fresno, Calif.; and in a similar rush to judgment, the media joined Muslim groups in accusing anti-Islamic bigots for the vandalism of the Islamic Cultural Center there.
Only, it turned out that the incident was not an act of “Islamophobia” at all.
As in Houston, the damage was self-inflicted by a member of the mosque. Police arrested Asif Mohammad Khan. They said that he was an admirer of Osama bin Laden.
These are hardly isolated cases of Muslim groups and their media apologists misleading the public about anti-Muslim hate crimes.
They are part of a long series of events — including pure fabrications — that serve to portray non-Muslims as threats and deflect attention away from Muslims as the real threats. Learning from other groups, they’ve discovered that racism can be blamed for almost everything.
• October 2014: Two Muslim activists released a video showing NYPD cops harassing and “racially profiling” Muslims just for wearing Islamic garb. The video went viral; CAIR demanded an investigation for discrimination. But the whole thing was staged. The cops weren’t even real.
• June 2014: After three burned Qurans were found in front of a mosque in Dearborn, Mich., the imam there led a campaign to pass a local statute criminalizing the desecration of holy books. The media ran with it, and his crusade gained traction — until it was revealed that the Quran barbecuer was none other than a Muslim named Ali Hassan al-Assadi.
• April 2014: After murdering his wife, a Muslim man in El Cajon, Calif., made it look like an anti-Muslim bigot did the crime. He left a note with her body that read: “Go back to your country, you terrorist,” which led the media to report the murder as an “Islamophobic” hate crime.
Some claimed that the slain wife was targeted for “wearing a hijab.” CNN host Reza Aslan blamed conservative “Islamophobic f**ks” for the homicide — even after the truth came out that it was an Islamic honor killing, not a hate crime.
• August 2010: A Muslim high school girl in Ann Arbor, Mich., claimed that a mob physically attacked her in an apparent hate crime which included ethnic slurs and the forcible removal of her hijab.
The “alleged hate crime” prompted CAIR to lead a media blitz calling for investigations by state and federal authorities. Except the assault never happened. The girl was eventually charged and found guilty of disorderly conduct.
FBI data show that hate crimes against Muslims are actually rare, which probably explains the need to make them up.
Such hysteria over “Islamophobia” is merely used by terror-support groups such as CAIR to shut down debate over jihadism and the responsibilities of the Muslim community to reform violent Islam and call out the terrorists radicalized in its ranks.
Right Scoop, by soopermexican, Dec. 4,2015:
Social media was lit up with disbelief as the lawyers for the family of the terrorists that killed 14 people held a press conference denying all terrorist ties.
Here’s the entire bizarre presser:
At one point, one of the lawyers says that it doesn’t matter if they visited Islamist sites, and gave the Britney Spears defense. When pressed on what motive there was for the slaughter, they cite that someone made fun of his beard. Yup, really. They accuse the FBI of Islamophobia, the press of Islamophobia, and the GOP candidates of Islamophobia. In all of this they deny any terror ties, but their defense is that the FBI can’t find links to an organized terror organization. Even if that’s the case, it doesn’t mean that they weren’t inspired by Islamism, and there’s plenty of evidence for that.
Twice on Friday, the attorneys for the family of the accused terrorist and current corpse Syed Farook put on truly remarkable performances that left audiences breathless, confused, and probably questioning their own reality.
The first was a stunning interview on CNN with Chris Cuomo in which, among other things, attorney David Chesley implied a conspiracy to frame Farook and his wife, suggested his wife was too weak to lift a handgun, and dismissed pipe bombs as evidence because – and this is not a joke – “nobody ever saw him with one.” One would think it impossible to top that interview, but one would be terribly, wonderfully wrong.
In the video above, you see the press conference the two lawyers held this afternoon, and it was a doozy and a half. There is so much to go through that we will simply present you with a few of the highlights.
Like, it’s not like, well, ok, about Islam? And Farook was not aggressive, also:
Chesley made it clear that they feel they represent a lot more than just the Farook family. “The message that we want to give is, what we’d like to say on behalf of the families and the Muslim community in general,” continued Chesley. He stated that the FBI said “there was no sign that the alleged shooters belonged to a larger organization, like, a larger organized terror group or terror cell.” But he got a lot farther into the weeds on this:
“Throughout the whole process of the investigation yesterday it got to the point where the FBI actually said ‘look, let us explain ourselves, we’re trying to find evidence or information that could cause us to believe that, that the, that Syed Farook was in some way affiliated with this incident, like something inspired him to be involved in this incident, and, but the problem we’re having is that we’re not finding any evidence of any behavior that would lead, that would show us that this would be the alleged shooter, and so, you know, why isn’t that happening?’
And we were all like, well, we don’t have any explanation for you other than that there is no evidence. None of the family knew of him as being extreme or aggressive, or having kind, any extreme religious views.”
Say that five times fast – that was Chesley. Here is the other attorney, Mohammad Abuershaid, following up on that:
“And I think what the media should also be cautious about is, just because he had a religion that, he was Muslim, that had nothing to do with these acts. Islam does not agree, does not support any type of actions that occur like this. It does not support killing, it does not support murder of innocent individuals, and the family would never support anything like this.”
The emphasis on Muslim is not mine. Abuershaid put some stank on that.
“I think every investigation the FBI does when it’s involving a Muslim will involve some type of terrorist investigation for it.” – Abuershaid
Hating Britney Spears:
“I mean any one of us may have looked at something on Facebook. That doesn’t mean we believe in it. I’ve checked out a Britney Spears post, and I hate Britney Spears music.”
Did we mention that, like, it’s not about Islam? Because it’s super not.
“Until there is absolute clear evidence, every headline doesn’t have to say ‘Muslim massacre’ or ‘Muslim shooters’ because it’s gonna cause intolerance and what we need right now is forgiveness I think.”
This one is puzzling. “Until there is clear evidence” of what? That the two alleged shooters were Muslim? There is clear evidence. That these two Muslim individuals were the shooters? There is clear evidence of that as well. Which thing isn’t clear? Secondly, you don’t “cause intolerance”; that’s an absurdity. A person is intolerant or not. And most people are intolerant of murder. And finally, forgiveness for what, sir? What should be forgiven, and who should be forgiven? Weren’t you just saying that there’s no clear evidence about anything? So what exactly are we going to forgive?
And we haven’t even gotten to the epic embeardening excuse yet…
He was crazy. It wasn’t religion! Also it was work. It was workplace violence, not religion. They made fun of his beard! Did you know they made fun of his beard? Beards are very unpopular in America and people make fun of them. It was a video! No wait, it wasbecause of a Jew.
It was a magical crazy time in America when the Farook family attorneys held their press conference-anza. We’ll leave you with these two thoughts:
Exposing the true motivations of terrorist proxies and challenging their genocidal propaganda.
Frontpage, by Mark Tapson, Nov. 27, 2015:
Two weeks ago, a series of posters was placed anonymously on the campuses of George Washington University and American University in Washington, D.C. and those of UCLA, UC-Irvine and UC-San Diego in Southern California. The images were hashtagged #StopTheJihadOnCampus and pulled no punches in denouncing a pair of campus organizations for what they are: supporters of violent, Jew-hating jihad.
One poster depicted a bloody knife and photos of children being trained to become terrorists. Referring to a group known as the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the caption read, “Students for ‘Justice’ in Palestine: Supporting a Culture that Teaches Children to Slaughter Jews.” A second poster linked the late terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki to the Muslim Students Association (MSA), a national campus organization. A third targeted the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and the current “stabbing intifada” in Israel with the image of a bloody knife stabbing a Star of David. Its caption read, “The Real BDS: Boycott, Divest, Stab.”
Naturally, the posters sparked instant controversy and angry condemnations, because the campus supporters of jihad weren’t accustomed to having their agenda challenged or being caught in the harsh spotlight of truth. In response to the discovery of the posters, the Hillel organization at American University predictably issued a statement decrying them as threatening, “Islamophobic” hate speech and condemning “any efforts to demonize any racial or religious group.” Likewise, the statement from the Students for Justice in Palestine at American University labeled the posters as “the intimidation tactics of bigoted ideologues,” as “falsehoods” propagated about BDS (which the statement described as “the epitome of effective non-violent resistance”), and as “vitriolic, hateful rhetoric deliberately targeting Muslims, Arabs, those who may appear Muslim, and supporters of Palestinian rights.”
The following week, the David Horowitz Freedom Center took credit for distributing the posters as part of a major campus initiative called Stop the Jihad on Campus. The poster campaign targeted SJP and MSA, both of which were spawned by the Muslim Brotherhood, the same terrorist organization that launched al-Qaeda and Hamas. As a Freedom Center statement put it, both groups “are the chief campus sponsors” of the BDS movement “designed to destroy the Jewish state.”
UCLA’s Daily Bruin posted an article labeling the “offensive posters” as Islamophobic, to which David Horowitz himself responded with a letter in the Bruin correcting that and other “misleading impressions” in the initial article. “Shame on the students who spread the genocidal lies of Hamas on the UCLA campus,” he wrote. “Shame on them for supporting the 70-plus-year Arab aggression against the Jewish state and the 70-plus-year oppression of Palestinian Arabs by Fatah and Hamas.”
It is typical of these campus supporters of terrorism to attempt to suppress their critics by falsely accusing them of racism and Islamophobia, even though no racial or religious group was specified in the poster campaign. The posters were aimed at the two campus groups not because their membership is entirely Muslim (it’s not), but because they hold “Israeli Apartheid Weeks,” spread Jew-hating propaganda, support intifadas like the current one in Jerusalem and the West Bank, and support terrorist parties in Gaza and the West Bank that call for the destruction of the Jewish state and the extermination of the Jews of the Middle East.
The Stop the Jihad on Campus campaign seeks to raise awareness of how such anti-Israel terrorists have infiltrated American universities, spreading terrorist propaganda and messages, with university funding and support. Along those lines, it offers teach-ins to raise student awareness and combat pro-terrorist propaganda on American campuses. It has since gone on to post a list of the “Top 10 American universities most friendly to terrorists.”
The campaign’s demands are simple: no campus support for jihad terrorists, no campus privileges for anti-Israel hate groups, and no student funding for apartheid hate weeks. “Our goal in placing these posters on prominent campuses across America,” explains David Horowitz, “is to expose the true motivations of these terrorist proxy-groups and challenge their genocidal propaganda.” He continues:
Below are photos from the “Palestinian Wall of Lies” display recently set up at the University of South Dakota in conjunction with the Stop the Jihad on Campus campaign, as part of the Freedom Center’s efforts to counteract campus propaganda. The Wall lists and then debunks the major Palestinian lies about Israel and the Jews, which are often propagated unquestioned by the mainstream media and swallowed whole by impressionable college students. Needless to say, the Wall has proven to be quite a conversation piece whenever it has appeared on American campuses awash in leftist indoctrinationabout the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
To donate to Stop the Jihad on Campus, click here.