Max Blumenthal: “The Great Islamophobic Crusade”

An epic piece from Max Blumenthal. He links to us and a lot of the information he presents are issues that we have been covering for quite a long time. Robert Spencer and SIOA make a cameo.

The Great Islamophobic Crusade

Nine years after 9/11, hysteria about Muslims in American life has gripped the country.

With it has gone an outburst of arson attacks on mosques, campaigns to stop their construction, and the branding of the Muslim-American community, overwhelmingly moderate, as a hotbed of potential terrorist recruits. The frenzy has raged from rural Tennessee to New York City, while in Oklahoma, voters even overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure banning the implementation of Sharia law in American courts (not that such a prospect existed). This campaign of Islamophobia wounded President Obama politically, as one out of five Americans have bought into a sustained chorus of false rumors about his secret Muslim faith. And it may have tainted views of Muslims in general; an August 2010 Pew Research Center poll revealed that, among Americans, the favorability rating of Muslims had dropped by 11 points since 2005.

Erupting so many years after the September 11th trauma, this spasm of anti-Muslim bigotry might seem oddly timed and unexpectedly spontaneous. But think again: it’s the fruit of an organized, long-term campaign by a tight confederation of right-wing activists and operatives who first focused on Islamophobia soon after the September 11th attacks, but only attained critical mass during the Obama era.  It was then that embittered conservative forces, voted out of power in 2008, sought with remarkable success to leverage cultural resentment into political and partisan gain.

This network is obsessively fixated on the supposed spread of Muslim influence in America. Its apparatus spans continents, extending from Tea Party activists here to the European far right. It brings together in common cause right-wing ultra-Zionists, Christian evangelicals, and racist British soccer hooligans. It reflects an aggressively pro-Israel sensibility, with its key figures venerating the Jewish state as a Middle Eastern Fort Apache on the front lines of the Global War on Terror and urging the U.S. and various European powers to emulate its heavy-handed methods.

Little of recent American Islamophobia (with a strong emphasis on the “phobia”) is sheer happenstance.  Years before Tea Party shock troops massed for angry protests outside the proposed site of an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, representatives of the Israel lobby and the Jewish-American establishment launched a campaign against pro-Palestinian campus activism that would prove a seedbed for everything to come. That campaign quickly — and perhaps predictably — morphed into a series of crusades against mosques and Islamic schools which, in turn, attracted an assortment of shady but exceptionally energetic militants into the network’s ranks.

Besides providing the initial energy for the Islamophobic crusade, conservative elements from within the pro-Israel lobby bankrolled the network’s apparatus, enabling it to influence the national debate. One philanthropist in particular has provided the beneficence to propel the campaign ahead. He is a little-known Los Angeles-area software security entrepreneur named Aubrey Chernick, who operates out of a security consulting firm blandly named the National Center for Crisis and Continuity Coordination. A former trustee of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which has served as a think tank for the American Israel Policy Action Committee (AIPAC), a frontline lobbying group for Israel, Chernick is said to be worth $750 million.

Chernick’s fortune is puny compared to that of the billionaire Koch Brothers, extraction industry titans who fund Tea Party-related groups like Americans for Prosperity, and it is dwarfed by the financial empire of Haim Saban, the Israeli-American media baron who is one of the largest private donors to the Democratic party and recently matched$9 million raised for the Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces in a single night. However, by injecting his money into a small but influential constellation of groups and individuals with a narrow agenda, Chernick has had a considerable impact.

Through the Fairbrook Foundation, a private entity he and his wife Joyce control, Chernick has provided funding to groups ranging from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and CAMERA, a right-wing, pro-Israel, media-watchdog outfit, to violent Israeli settlers living on Palestinian lands and figures like the pseudo-academic author Robert Spencer, who is largely responsible for popularizing conspiracy theories about the coming conquest of the West by Muslim fanatics seeking to establish a worldwide caliphate. Together, these groups spread hysteria about Muslims into Middle American communities where immigrants from the Middle East have recently settled, and they watched with glee as likely Republican presidential frontrunners from Mike Huckabee to Sarah Palin promoted their cause and parroted their tropes. Perhaps the only thing more surprising than the increasingly widespread appeal of Islamophobia is that, just a few years ago, the phenomenon was confined to a few college campuses and an inner city neighborhood, and that it seemed like a fleeting fad that would soon pass from the American political landscape.

Birth of a Network

The Islamophobic crusade was launched in earnest at the peak of George W. Bush’s prestige when the neoconservatives and their allies were riding high. In 2003, three years after the collapse of President Bill Clinton’s attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue and in the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq, a network of Jewish groups, ranging from ADL and the American Jewish Committee to AIPAC, gathered to address what they saw as a sudden rise in pro-Palestinian activism on college campuses nationwide. That meeting gave birth to the David Project, a campus advocacy group led by Charles Peters, who had co-founded CAMERA, one of the many outfits bankrolled by Chernick. With the help of public relations professionals, Peters conceived a plan to “take back the campus by influencing public opinion through lectures, the Internet, and coalitions,” as a memo produced at the time by the consulting firm McKinsey and Company stated.

In 2004, after conferring with Martin Kramer, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the pro-Israel think tank where Chernoff had served as a trustee, Peters produced a documentary film that he called Columbia Unbecoming.  It was filled with claims from Jewish students at Columbia University claiming they had endured intimidation and insults from Arab professors.  The film portrayed that New York City school’s Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures as a hothouse of anti-Semitism.

In their complaints, the students focused on one figure in particular: Joseph Massad, a Palestinian professor of Middle East studies.  He was known for his passionate advocacy of the formation of a binational state between Israel and Palestine, as well as for his strident criticism of what he termed “the racist character of Israel.” The film identified him as “one of the most dangerous intellectuals on campus,” while he was featured as a crucial villain inThe Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, a book by the (Chernick-funded) neoconservative activist David Horowitz.  As Massad was seeking tenure at the time, he was especially vulnerable to this sort of wholesale assault.

When the controversy over Massad’s views intensified, Congressman Anthony Weiner, a liberal New York Democrat who once described himself as a representative of “the ZOA [Zionist Organization of America] wing of the Democratic Party,” demanded that Columbia President Lee Bollinger, a renowned First Amendment scholar, fire the professor. Bollinger responded by issuing uncharacteristically defensive statements about the “limited” nature of academic freedom.

In the end, however, none of the charges stuck. Indeed, the testimonies in the David Project film were eventually either discredited or never corroborated. In 2009, Massad earned tenure after winning Columbia’s prestigious Lionel Trilling Award for excellence in scholarship.

Having demonstrated its ability to intimidate faculty members and even powerful university administrators, however, Kramer claimed a moral victory in the name of his project, boasting to the press that “this is a turning point.” While the David Project subsequently fostered chapters on campuses nationwide, its director set out on a different path — initially, into the streets of Boston in 2004 to oppose the construction of the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center.

For nearly 15 years, the Islamic Society of Boston had sought to build the center in the heart of Roxbury, the city’s largest black neighborhood, to serve its sizable Muslim population. With endorsements from Mayor Thomas Menino and leading Massachusetts lawmakers, the mosque’s construction seemed like a fait accompli — until, that is, the Rupert Murdoch-owned Boston Herald and his local Fox News affiliate snapped into action.  Boston Globecolumnist Jeff Jacoby also chimed in with a series of reports claiming the center’s plans were evidence of a Saudi Arabian plot to bolster the influence of radical Islam in the United States, and possibly even to train underground terror cells.

It was at this point that the David Project entered the fray, convening elements of the local pro-Israel community in the Boston area to seek strategies to torpedo the project. According to emails obtained by the Islamic Society’s lawyers in a lawsuit against the David Project, the organizers settled on a campaign of years of nuisance lawsuits, along with accusations that the center had received foreign funding from “the Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia or… the Moslem Brotherhood.”

In response, a grassroots coalition of liberal Jews initiated inter-faith efforts aimed at ending a controversy that had essentially been manufactured out of thin air and was corroding relations between the Jewish and Muslim communities in the city. Peters would not, however, relent. “We are more concerned now than we have ever been about a Saudi influence of local mosques,” he announced at a suburban Boston synagogue in 2007.

After paying out millions of dollars in legal bills and enduring countless smears, the Islamic Society of Boston completed the construction of its community center in 2008. Meanwhile, not surprisingly, nothing came of the David Project’s dark warnings. As Boston-area National Public Radio reporter Philip Martin reflected in September 2010, “The horror stories that preceded [the center’s] development seem shrill and histrionic in retrospect.”

The Network Expands

This second failed campaign was, in the end, more about movement building than success, no less national security. The local crusade established an effective blueprint for generating hysteria against the establishment of Islamic centers and mosques across the country, while galvanizing a cast of characters who would form an anti-Muslim network which would gain attention and success in the years to come.

In 2007, these figures coalesced into a proto-movement that launched a new crusade, this time targeting the Khalil Gibran International Academy, a secular Arabic-English elementary school in Brooklyn, New York. Calling their ad hoc pressure group, Stop the Madrassah – madrassah being simply the Arab word for “school” — the coalition’s activists included an array of previously unknown zealots who made no attempt to disguise their extreme views when it came to Islam as a religion, as well as Muslims in America. Their stated goal was to challenge the school’s establishment on the basis of its violation of the church-state separation in the U.S. Constitution.  The true aim of the coalition, however, was transparent: to pressure the city’s leadership to adopt an antagonistic posture towards the local Muslim community.

The activists zeroed in on the school’s principal, Debbie Almontaser, a veteran educator of Yemeni descent, and baselessly branded her “a jihadist” as well as a 9/11 denier.  They also accused her of — as Pamela Geller, a far-right blogger just then gaining prominence put it, “whitewash[ing] the genocide against the Jews.”  Daniel Pipes, a neoconservative academic previously active in the campaigns against Joseph Massad and the Boston Islamic center (and whose pro-Likud think tank, Middle East Forum, has received $150,000 from Chernick) claimed the school should not go ahead because “Arabic-language instruction is inevitably laden with Pan-Arabist and Islamist baggage.” As the campaign reached a fever pitch, Almontaser reported that members of the coalition were actuallystalking her wherever she went.

Given what Columbia Journalism School professor and former New York Times reporter Samuel Freedman called“her clear, public record of interfaith activism and outreach,” including work with the New York Police Department and the Anti-Defamation League after the September 11th attacks, the assault on Almontaser seemed little short of bizarre — until her assailants discovered a photograph of her wearing a T-shirt produced by AWAAM, a local Arab feminist organization, that read “Intifada NYC.” (“As AWAAM provides young women with opportunities to become active as community organizers and media producers, ‘intifada NYC’ is a call for empowerment, service, civic participation and critical thinking in our communities,” the organization explained once the controversy erupted.)

Having found a way to wedge the emotional issue of the Israel-Palestine conflict into a previously New York-centered campaign, the school’s opponents next gained a platform at the Murdoch-owned New York Post, where reporters Chuck Bennett and Jana Winter claimed her T-shirt was “apparently a call for a Gaza-style uprising in the Big Apple.” While Almontaser attempted to explain to the Post’s reporters that she rejected terrorism, the Anti-Defamation League chimed in on cue. ADL spokesman Oren Segal told the Post: “The T-shirt is a reflection of a movement that increasingly lauds violence against Israelis instead of rejecting it. That is disturbing.”

Before any Qassam rockets could be launched from Almonstaser’s school, her former ally New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg caved to the growing pressure and demanded her resignation, prompting the state’s Department of Education to fire her. A Jewish principal who spoke no Arabic replaced Almontaser, who later filed a lawsuit against the city for breaching her free speech rights. In 2010, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that New York’s Department of Education had “succumbed to the very bias that the creation of the school was intended to dispel” by firing Almontaser and urged it pay her $300,000 in damages. The commission also concluded that thePost had quoted her misleadingly.

Though it failed to stop the establishment of the Khalil Gibran Academy, the burgeoning anti-Muslim movement succeeded in forcing city leaders to bend to its will, and having learned just how to do that, then moved on in search of more high-profile targets. As the New York Times reported at the time, “The fight against the school… was only an early skirmish in a broader, national struggle.”

“It’s a battle that has really just begun,” Pipes told the Times.

From Scam to Publicity Coup

Pipes couldn’t have been more on the mark. In late 2009, the Islamophobes sprang into action again when the Cordoba Initiative, a non-profit Muslim group headed by Feisal Abdul Rauf, an exceedingly moderate Sufi Muslim imam who regularlytraveled abroad representing the United States at the behest of the State Department, announced that it was going to build a community center in downtown New York City. With the help of investors, Rauf’s Cordoba Initiative purchased space two blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan.  The space was to contain a prayer area as part of a large community center that would be open to everyone in the neighborhood.

None of these facts mattered to Pamela Geller. Thanks to constant prodding at her blog, Atlas Shrugged, Geller made Cordoba’s construction plans a national issue, provoking fervent calls from conservatives to protect the “hallowed ground” of 9/11 from creeping Sharia. (That the “mosque” would have been out of sight of Ground Zero and that the neighborhood was, in fact, filled with everything from strip clubs to fast-food joints didn’t matter.)  Geller’s activism against Cordoba House earned the 52-year-old full-time blogger the attention she apparently craved, including along profile in the New York Times and frequent cable news spots, especially, of course, on Fox News.

Mainstream reporters tended to focus on Geller’s bizarre stunts.  She posted a video of herself splashing around in a string bikini on a Fort Lauderdale beach, for instance, while ranting about “left-tards” and “Nazi Hezbollah.”  Hercall for boycotting Campbell’s Soup because the company offered halal — approved under Islamic law (as kosher food is under Jewish law) — versions of its products got her much attention, as did her promotion of a screed claiming that President Barack Obama was the illegitimate lovechild of Malcolm X.

Geller had never earned a living as a journalist.  She supported herself with millions of dollars in a divorce settlement and life insurance money from her ex-husband.  He died in 2008, a year after being indicted for an alleged $1.3 million scam he was accused of running out of a car dealership he co-owned with Geller. Independently wealthy and with time on her hands, Geller proved able indeed when it came to exploiting her strange media stardom to incite the already organized political network of Islamophobes to intensify their crusade.

She also benefited from close alliances with leading Islamophobes from Europe. Among Geller’s allies was Andrew Gravers, a Danish activist who formed the group Stop the Islamicization of Europe, and gave it the unusually blunt motto: “Racism is the lowest form of human stupidity, but Islamophobia is the height of common sense.” Gravers’ group inspired Geller’s own U.S.-based outfit, Stop the Islamicization of America, which she formed with her friend Robert Spencer, a pseudo-scholar from Great Britain whose bestselling books, including The Truth About Muhammad, Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion, prompted former advisor to President Richard Nixon and Muslim activist Robert Crane to call him, “the principal leader… in the new academic field of Muslim bashing.” (According to the website Politico, almost $1 million in donations from Chernick has been steered to Spencer’s Jihad Watch group through David Horowitz’s Freedom Center.)

Perfect sources for Republican political figures in search of the next hot-button cause, their rhetoric found its way into the talking points of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin as they propelled the crusade against Cordoba House into the national spotlight. Gingrich soon compared the community center to a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Memorial Museum, while Palin called it “a stab in the heart” of “the Heartland.” Meanwhile, Tea Party candidates like Republican Ilario Pantano, an Iraq war veteran who killed two unarmed Iraqi civilians, shooting them 60 times — he even stopped to reload — made their opposition to Cordoba House the centerpiece of midterm congressional campaigns conducted hundreds of miles from Ground Zero.
Geller’s campaign against “the mosque at Ground Zero” gained an unexpected assist and a veneer of legitimacy from established Jewish leaders like Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman. “Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational,” he remarked to the New York Times. Comparing the bereaved family members of 9-11 victims to Holocaust survivors, Foxman insisted, “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”

Soon enough, David Harris, director of the (Chernick-funded) American Jewish Committee, was demanding that Cordoba’s leaders be compelled to reveal their “true attitudes” about Palestinian militant groups before construction on the center was initiated.  Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center of Los Angeles, another major Jewish group, insisted it would be “insensitive” for Cordoba to build near “a cemetery,” though his organization had recently been granted permission from the municipality of Jerusalem to build a “museum of tolerance” to be called The Center for Human Dignity directly on top of the Mamilla Cemetery, a Muslim graveyard that contained thousands of gravesites dating back 1,200 years.

Inspiration from Israel

It was evident from the involvement of figures like Gravers and Spencer that the Islamophobic network in the United States represented a trans-Atlantic expansion of simmering resentment in Europe.  There, the far-right was storming to victories in parliamentary elections across the continent in part by appealing to the simmering anti-Muslim sentiments of voters in rural and working-class communities. The extent of the collaboration between European and American Islamophobes has only continued to grow with Geller, Spencer, and even Gingrich standing beside Europe’s most prominent anti-Muslim figure, Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, at a rally against Cordoba House.  In the meantime, Geller was issuing statements of support for the English Defense League, a band of unreconstructed neo-Nazis and former members of the whites-only British National Party who intimidate Muslims in the streets of cities like Birmingham and London.

In addition, the trans-Atlantic Islamophobic crusade has stretched into Israel, a country that has come to symbolize the network’s fight against the Muslim menace. As Geller told the New York Times’ Alan Feuer, Israel is “a very good guide because, like I said, in the war between the civilized man and the savage, you side with the civilized man.”

EDL members regularly wave Israeli flags at their rallies, while Wilders claims to have formed his views about Muslims during the time he worked on an Israeli cooperative farm in the 1980s. He has, he says, visited the country more than 40 times since to meet with rightist political allies like Aryeh Eldad, a member of the Israeli Knesset and leader of the far right Hatikvah faction of the National Union Party.  He has called for forcibly “transferring” the Palestinians living in Israel and the occupied West Bank to Jordan and Egypt. On December 5th, for example, Wilders traveled to Israel for a “friendly” meeting with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, then declared at a press conference that Israel should annex the West Bank and set up a Palestinian state in Jordan.

In the apocalyptic clash of civilizations the global anti-Muslim network has sought to incite, tiny armed Jewish settlements like Yitzar, located on the hills above the occupied Palestinian city of Nablus, represent front-line fortresses. Inside Yitzar’s state-funded yeshiva, a rabbi named Yitzhak Shapira has instructed students in what rules must be applied when considering killing non-Jews. Shapira summarized his opinions in a widely publicized bookTorat HaMelech, or The King’s Torah. Claiming that non-Jews are “uncompassionate by nature,” Shapira cited rabbinical texts to declare that gentiles could be killed in order to “curb their evil inclinations.” “There is justification,” the rabbi proclaimed, “for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”

In 2006, the rabbi was briefly held by Israeli police for urging his supporters to murder all Palestinians over the age of 13. Two years later, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, he signed a rabbinical letter in support of Israeli Jews who had brutally assaulted two Arab youths on the country’s Holocaust Remembrance Day. That same year, Shapira was arrested as a suspect in helping orchestrate a rocket attack against a Palestinian village near Nablus.

Though he was not charged, his name came up again in connection with another act of terror when, in January 2010, the Israeli police raided his settlement seeking vandals who had set fire to a nearby mosque. One of Shapira’s followers, an American immigrant, Jack Teitel, has confessed to murdering two innocent Palestinians and attempting to the kill the liberal Israeli historian Ze’ev Sternhell with a mail bomb.

What does all this have to do with Islamophobic campaigns in the United States?  A great deal, actually. Through New York-based tax-exempt non-profits like the Central Fund of Israel and Ateret Cohenim, for instance, the omnipresent Aubrey Chernick has sent tens of thousands of dollars to support the Yitzar settlement, as well as to the messianic settlers dedicated to “Judaizing” East Jerusalem. The settlement movement’s leading online news magazine, Arutz Sheva, has featured Geller as a columnist.  A friend of Geller’s, Beth Gilinsky, a right-wing activist with a group called the Coalition to Honor Ground Zero and the founder of the Jewish Action Alliance (apparently runout of a Manhattan real estate office), organized a large rally in New York City in April 2010 to protest the Obama administration’s call for a settlement freeze.

Among Chernick’s major funding recipients is a supposedly “apolitical” group called Aish Hatorah that claims to educate Jews about their heritage. Based in New York and active in the fever swamps of northern West Bank settlements near Yitzar, Aish Hatorah shares an address and staff with a shadowy foreign non-profit called the Clarion Fund. During the 2008 U.S. election campaign, the Clarion Fund distributed 28 million DVDs of a propaganda film called Obsession as newspaper inserts to residents of swing states around the country. The film featured a who’s who of anti-Muslim activists, including Walid Shoebat, a self-proclaimed “former PLO terrorist.” Among Shoebat’s more striking statements: “A secular dogma like Nazism is less dangerous than is Islamofascism today.” At a Christian gathering in 2007, this “former Islamic terrorist” told the crowd that Islam was a “satanic cult” and that he had been born again as an evangelical Christian. In 2008, however, the Jerusalem Post, a right-leaning newspaper, exposed him as a fraud, whose claims to terrorism were fictional.

Islamophobic groups registered only a minimal impact during the 2008 election campaign. Two years later, however, after the Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives in midterm elections, the network appears to have reached critical mass. Of course, the deciding factor in the election was the economy, and in two years, Americans will likely vote their pocketbooks again. But that the construction of a single Islamic community center or the imaginary threat of Sharia law were issues at all reflected the influence of a small band of locally oriented activists, and suggested that when a certain presidential candidate who has already been demonized as a crypto-Muslim runs for reelection, the country’s most vocal Islamophobes could once again find a national platform amid the frenzied atmosphere of the campaign.

By now, the Islamophobic crusade has gone beyond the right-wing pro-Israel activists, cyber-bigots, and ambitious hucksters who conceived it. It now belongs to leading Republican presidential candidates, top-rated cable news hosts, and crowds of Tea Party activists. As the fervor spreads, the crusaders are basking in the glory of what they accomplished. “I didn’t choose this moment,” Geller mused to the New York Times, “this moment chose me.”

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

Original post: The Great Islamophobic Crusade

27 thoughts on “Max Blumenthal: “The Great Islamophobic Crusade”

    • Of course there is. When you have to resort to cooking up conspiracy theories about them taking over the world. Not to mention, constantly making them an imaginary boogieman, then fear is the only explanation. Fear of the unknown.

      • Did it ever cross your mind that the many imams that have been documented on video, explaining how they want Islam and Sharia to spread across the globe, might be the culprit responsible for us infidels believing that Muslims want to take over the world? Just a thought.

        • Take a chill pill Ahni, no need for spamming.

          So you admit that you think that Muslims are trying to take over the world? Based on a couple of MEMRI vids no less? Seriously, ‘nough said. Loon fail.

          Speaking of loon fail, what’s with you people and the ad hominem with people that don’t agree with you? There isn’t anybody on this site that expressed sympathy for terrorism, anti-semitism, or a whole host of other shallow accusations. When losing the argument, name-call and post a lot amirite?

          • So you admit that you think that Muslims are trying to take over the world? Based on a couple of MEMRI vids no less? Seriously, ‘nough said. Loon fail.

            The Islamic Circle of North America’s goals are to establish a worldwide caliphate and impose Sharia law.

            Link

            As the hand book spells out, the organization’s ultimate goal is “the Establishment of Islam” as the sole basis of global society and governance. It also encourages members to deceive people in its proselytizing campaign to help fulfill this goal. This aim is one that ICNA has been actively pursuing as the group has set its sights on America’s constitutional separation of religion and state.

            Uh oh, sounds like conspiracy theorists and Islamophobes! Oh wait, those are Muslims.

          • Wow Ahni. What a find! I must congratulate you on this one, fo shizle (black culture, run!). You must feel like the guy who discovered the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.

            Too bad the sisters wing of the Islamic Circle of North America doesn’t represent the 1.5 billion Muslims of the world, let alone all of the Muslims of North America. Also, the document is calling for the establishment of Quranic study circles as well as some missionary work (no surprise here since Islam, like Christianity, is a missionary religion). At a global level, this will supposedly create further unity and a Khilafah. Yes a Khilafah. Take a look at a map from another shady extremist organisation Hizb ut Tahrir and you can clearly see America and Western Europe is excluded. Only Islamic countries are included as if the countries mutually decided to remove the borders and unite. That’s hardly a worldwide Caliphate or a plan to overthrow world governments, more like a plan to stitch together countries that already have significant Muslim populations. In any case, their plan is highly unlikely and not what you imagine.

            No doubt there are Mooslims crazy enough to demand that all world governments are overthrown in an armed revolution and replaced with Islamic Sharia law. Again, they do not represent ever single Muslim. There is no reason to fear that Abdul, your taxi driver, or Ahmed, the owner of a nearby halal meat shop, will pull out an AK-47 any minute and overthrow the democracy of the United States. No. That is about as likely as Samuel Jackson jumping out of a bush and decapitating you with a Jedi sword (I know how you feel about black crime).

        • “Did it ever cross your mind that the many imams that have been documented on video, explaining how they want Islam and Sharia to spread across the globe, might be the culprit responsible for us infidels believing that Muslims want to take over the world? Just a thought.”

          Yes. Hence why I am equally pissed off at those Imams. But certainly some of Islamophobia is just plain old fear based on nothing. A good search on google news from the 1900s shows articles from the LA times revealing a secret “Muhammedan plot” to overtake the United States by the end of the decade. No doubt the author of that article also learnt of this secret plot from YouTube and MEMRI translated videos of loony Imams.

        • Oh, you mean like the many Christians who, even today, actively seek to have Christianity dominate the world? Given what Christian rule has accomplished in the past, I think there should be more to fear from that. But there isn’t, why? It’s not because they believe Christians are “non-violent”, or “peace-loving”, but simply because people know who Christians are. They have friends and/or family members who are Christians. They think nothing of a priest who wants to “spread the word of Jesus” to the entire world, so that the entire world “accepts Jesus as its lord and savior”.

          But, you find a Muslim who wants the entire world to embrace Islam, believing that “there is no other deity besides God, and that Muhammad is the last Messenger of God”, and they sensationalize it into some megalomaniacal plot to violently take over the world. Why? Because they do not know any Muslims, since none of their friends nor family members are Muslims.

          In reality, it’s simply the inevitable result of any missionary religion, that it aspires to dominate the world. Both Islam and Christianity are global missionary religions, so, by definition, that’s what they both aspire to.

          You may want to say that Muslims, or Islam, seek to accomplish this through violence, but that simply isn’t true. Islam has nothing that calls for a violent world conquest and the Muslims who want Islam to dominate the world are not using violence to do so, while the Muslims who do use violence, aren’t doing so because they want Islam to dominate the world.

          “Muslim terrorism” and “Islam ruling the world” are mutually exclusive.

          • But, you find a Muslim who wants the entire world to embrace Islam, believing that “there is no other deity besides God, and that Muhammad is the last Messenger of God”, and they sensationalize it into some megalomaniacal plot to violently take over the world. Why?

            Because there are many thousands, possibly millions, of Muslims out there committing violence in order to spread Islam?

            In reality, it’s simply the inevitable result of any missionary religion, that it aspires to dominate the world. Both Islam and Christianity are global missionary religions, so, by definition, that’s what they both aspire to.

            That should come as a shock to Cynic. He’s been yammering on and on about how Muslims do not want to take over the world.

            There’s a great debate that Spencer just participated in where a “moderate Imam” admitted that Jews and Christians will pay an extra tax in a Sharia-compliant society. I guess his taqiyya sense temporarily malfunctioned. Daniel Pipes was shocked to hear this admission.

            Debate

          • Because there are many thousands, possibly millions, of Muslims out there committing violence in order to spread Islam?

            As I said before (and you conveniently chose not to comment on) Muslims who want Islam to dominate the world are not using violence to do so, while the Muslims who do use violence, aren’t doing so because they want Islam to dominate the world.

            That should come as a shock to Cynic. He’s been yammering on and on about how Muslims do not want to take over the world.

            Cynic is right that Muslims don’t want to take over the world, because they don’t. Wanting Islam to dominate the world is different from wanting to take over the world yourself. What Muslims want for Islam is no different than what Christians want for Christianity, and therefore, it shouldn’t be regarded any differently.

            There’s a great debate that Spencer just participated in where a “moderate Imam” admitted that Jews and Christians will pay an extra tax in a Sharia-compliant society. I guess his taqiyya sense temporarily malfunctioned. Daniel Pipes was shocked to hear this admission.

            “Taqiyya” is another concept, which Spencer and his ilk like to sensationalize to mean something it doesn’t. As for dhimmitude, that has already been addressed on loonwatch. The last “Islamic State” was the Ottoman Empire, where the system of jizya and dhimmitude was officially abolished by Caliphal decree (the Hatt-i Humayan) in 1856, creating religious equality, which was then followed by the passage of the Nationality Law in 1869, which created a common citizenship, irrespective of religious and ethnic divides. Furthermore, the actual conditions of dhimmitude and jizya, when it was originally practiced, were accomplished through contractual agreement via mutual consent. Furthermore, any hypothetical Islamic state that came into existence today would have to go through the process of reinstating it, which is highly unlikely, given that no one wants it.

            Ahninny,

            You, and the rest of the right-wing Spencerites, and Islamophobes, are harping on a system that intially existed only for security against pledge violators and hostile foes, with it’s stipulations accomplished through mutual consent, and was officially abolished by the Islamic State over 150 years ago!

          • “That should come as a shock to Cynic. He’s been yammering on and on about how Muslims do not want to take over the world.”

            Most religions believe that they are so good and so beneficial to humans that if the entire human race were to join them, it would be a good thing. Hence, if a Muslims wants Islam to spread throughout the world, it is only because he wants to share his awesome religion with others. However, you suggest that all Muslims want to takeover the world. That is different. Not all Muslims want to overthrow every single government on this planet by armed revolution. But we all should want Islam to spread, as Christians want their religion to spread, because we believe it to be so great that we shouldn’t keep it to ourselves.

            In conclusion, Muslims may want their religion to spread, but that is only natural since they believe it to worth sharing, but do not want to take over and run the whole world.

          • Wow. I thought it was pretty obvious that my mentioning of “taking over the world” was referring to Islam taking over. Did anyone really think I meant that each individual Muslim wanted to take over the world him/herself? That’s ridiculous.

            But anyway, the problem with comparing the worldwide goals of Islam and Christianity is that Christianity does not have an inherent system of government that forces unbelievers to pay jizya, forces them to live as second class citizens in a perpetual state of decline, strips away virtually all basic human rights, and so forth.

            Islam is a barbaric, medieval system and we infidels do not want it to gain power. See, we prefer good old democracy and human rights based on rational thought and not religious mumbo jumbo, if you don’t mind too much (but I know you do).

          • “Wow. I thought it was pretty obvious that my mentioning of “taking over the world” was referring to Islam taking over. Did anyone really think I meant that each individual Muslim wanted to take over the world him/herself? That’s ridiculous.”

            Your words: “…us infidels believing that Muslims want to take over the world?”

            You never said Islam wanted to take over the world but you said Mooslims. You said that infidels like you believe that Mooslims want to take over the world. Not one or two Mooslims, but all 1.5 billion. You also mentioned MEMRI videos and a members handbook from the sisters wing of the Islamic Circle of North America as evidence that all 1.5 billion Mooslims want to establish a worldwide caliphate as if one night, when the moon is full, Mooslims- pumped up on Campbell’s Soup- will pull out AK-47s and take over the world. Seriously, if democracy is so weak that it can be taken over by a few “taqiyyq-sprayin” Mooslims, then it must be a pretty crappy system. Obviously you don’t have faith in your democracy. I am quite confident that democracy in America can withstand the mighty force of 1 percent of its population, even if they all merge together, Sunni and Shia, Sufi and Wahhabi (which is pretty unlikely any time soon) and revolt.

            “But anyway, the problem with comparing the worldwide goals of Islam and Christianity is that Christianity does not have an inherent system of government that forces unbelievers to pay jizya, forces them to live as second class citizens in a perpetual state of decline, strips away virtually all basic human rights, and so forth.”

            Lol. http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude/

          • But anyway, the problem with comparing the worldwide goals of Islam and Christianity is that Christianity does not have an inherent system of government that forces unbelievers to pay jizya, forces them to live as second class citizens in a perpetual state of decline, strips away virtually all basic human rights, and so forth.

            Sounds like sensationalist nonsense coming from you, especially since I already responded to your dhimmitude-jizya rhetoric earlier. It is ironic though, given that these things are exactly what Christian rule has done, as is obvious from history. Or do you want to use history when talking about Islamic rule, but not use it when talking about Christian rule?

            In reality, Christianity taking over the world would, at most, be as good as Islam taking over the world, if not worse.

            Islam is a barbaric, medieval system and we infidels do not want it to gain power.

            Well, that’s because all you look at, is how it was done during the medieval time period.

            I mean, wow! Medieval rule during the medieval time period!?

            *****IT’S A SENSATION!!!!*******

            See, we prefer good old democracy and human rights based on rational thought and not religious mumbo jumbo, if you don’t mind too much (but I know you do).

            If you take Spencer seriously, then you obviously don’t really believe in any of those things, or simply don’t know what they are.

          • “See, we prefer good old democracy and human rights based on rational thought and not religious mumbo jumbo, if you don’t mind too much (but I know you do).”

            Good. Nice to see we agree on something. Most of the world’s Muslims live in democracies which highlights that democracy is compatible with Islam. The founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah (whose birthday it is on Christmas) made this awesome statement:

            “Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught us equality of man, justice and fair play to everybody.”

            No doubt you disagree with that statement but who gives a damn what you think. Democracy is compatible with Islam and the world’s foremost Islamic scholars are in agrizzlement.

            The early Pakistani government (before US supported dictator, Zia ul Haq, came into power and introduced fake semi-sharia) made sure human rights would be respected.

            This article should help you understand more:

            http://www.loonwatch.com/the-objectives-resolution-of-1949/

          • “Valmont’s suspicion of modernist Islam was common among Christians, even among scholars who studied Islam. Duncan Black Macdonald (United States, 1863-1943), for example, wrote in 1903 that Islam does not allow constitutionalism…Yet within a few years of that statement, some of the leading scholars of the Islamic world were arguing exactly the contrary. Muhammad ‘Abduh (Egypt 1849-1905; see chapter 3)–the highest-ranking religious official in Egypt–wrote privately in 1904 that he supported a parliamentary democracy. In 1908, Mehmed Emaleddin Efendi (Turkey, 1848-1917)–the chief religious authority of the Ottoman Empire, appointed directly by the caliph–said that he too supported constitutionalism.”

            The chief religious authority during the last Islamic empire supporting constitutionalism. Must be some taqiyya spraying Mooslim!

            http://www.loonwatch.com/modernist-islam/

    • What a lie Marty. A bit like how you insisted Reza Aslan denied the existence of antisemitism when he didn’t.

      Even the SIOE admits the existence of Islamophobia and rejoices in being Islamophobes. It calls Islamophobia, the fear of all things Mooslim, ‘the height of common sense’. Obviously, denying the existence of Islamophobia is nothing but a lie. There are people out there who are afraid of us, so you cannot deny that no one is afraid of us. People are afraid of churches that even look Mooslim.

      You can say that they’re afraid because of the extremists presenting a bad image for Islam. But you cannot deny that they do not fear us.

  1. Even if only 1% of all Muslims are engaged in violent jihad against the west, that is still 16 million people that authorities need to counter and prevent them from arranging mass killings.

    • And there’s no telling what percent still support violent jihad, even though they are not the ones doing it. 1 in 3 in the UK support it, according to a survey revealed in Wikileaks.

      There is little doubt in my mind that some people on this very website would support the replacement of Western style democracy with full-blown Sharia. What reason would a “moderate” have to not want Sharia?

      • If you are going to associate people who simply believe something and people who take it to a violent extreme, then can we also do the same with anti-abortionists? They obviously sympathize with the motives of abortion clinic bombers right? Can we lump the two together?

    • I’ll agree with Marty here, whoever is engaged in terrorism or supporting terrorism – no matter how small that group may be or what religion they may be – they must be stopped.

      To Ahni, what I have just said is probably just taqiyya. But I assure you it’s not taqiyya. Unless of course what I just said was also taqiyya. Unless what I just said now was also taqiyya and I was just saying all of this to make it seem like what I said was taqiyya to make everyone scared that everything I will ever say is just taqiyya.

      Islamophobia is confusing…
      http://spencerwatch.com/2010/08/15/silencing-spencer-taqiyya-and-kitman-are-part-of-judeo-christian-belief/

  2. Are you guys proud of your dhimmi, useful idiot, Max Blumenthal? Will it spare him the infidel’s fate once the jihad really kicks into high gear? Somehow, I doubt it will.

    Erupting so many years after the September 11th trauma, this spasm of anti-Muslim bigotry might seem oddly timed and unexpectedly spontaneous. But think again: it’s the fruit of an organized, long-term campaign by a tight confederation of right-wing activists and operatives who first focused on Islamophobia soon after the September 11th attacks, but only attained critical mass during the Obama era. It was then that embittered conservative forces, voted out of power in 2008, sought with remarkable success to leverage cultural resentment into political and partisan gain.

    Sounds like a paranoid liberal loon scapegoating conservatives. Yawn.

    Right, Max. The majority of America is suspicious of Muslims not because there have been dozens of attacks and attempted attacks on US soil… that can’t be the reason. It’s all the fault of a few Islamophobes and bigots!

    You guys give Spencer too much credit. He didn’t wake the world up to the dangers of Islam…. you guys did.

    • No, your sensationalism did, as we all know, whenever a Muslim commits a crime (or tries to):

      *****IT’S A SENSATION!!!!*******

      … and of course when anyone else does (or tries to do) worse, you could care less.

      No one woke up to any “dangers of Islam”, they just became drunk on their own stupidity and paranoia, so Spencer comes along to make money by keeping them that way.

    • “Sounds like a paranoid liberal loon scapegoating conservatives. Yawn.”

      – The old liberal/conservative card. I take it you’re a right-wing Repugnantcan, Ahninny? It seems to be another common trait shared by Spencer’s bottom feeders, and it certainly explains a lot about their views.

    • Max Blumenthal is on our side. I guess that means he’s being antisemitic (using Ahni’s logic) even though he’s Jewish. I suppose details don’t matter when making pointless accusations.

Leave a Reply to Marty Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *