Ahavath Torah Congregation and Great Neck Synagogue Give Platform to Hate Group Leaders

Ahavath_Torah_Congregation

by Emperor

It is sad and dangerous when a religious institution actively allows itself to be used as a platform for hate-mongers who have inspired terrorists and incite hatred and prejudice against Muslims.

Ahavath Torah Synagogue, led by the Betraying Rabbi Jon Hausman has a long history of allowing itself to be used in such a way, for instance making the pulpit available to the likes of Geert “no religious freedom for Muslims” Wilders and Wafa “nuke ‘em” Sultan.

Both Ahavath Torah Synagogue and Great Neck Synagogue should be ashamed of themselves; real embarrassments to Judaism.

Lars Hedegaard, Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, Tiffany Gabbay to speak on panel discussion regarding “Sharia’s Assault on Free Speech.”

Lars Hedegaard
Robert Spencer
Tiffany Gabbay
Dr. Andrew Bostom
Moderated by Michael Graham*

Each of these individuals possess deep knowledge forged by years of involvement. No doubt this will prove to be an enlightening evening.

*This event is co-sponsored by Act for America and Michael Graham’s “New England Talk Network”.

When: Wednesday March 20, 2013
Time: 7:00PM
Address: Ahavath Torah Congregation, 1179 Central Street, Stoughton, MA
Price: $15 per person in advance, $20/$25 at the door, $10 for students with valid student ID.

Pamela “the looniest blogger ever” Geller will be speaking to Great Neck Synagogue:

On Sunday Morning, April 14, at 10:00am, the Great Neck Synagogue Men’s Club presents Pamela Geller, Founder of the influential “Atlas Shrugs” blog and Executive Director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA).

Geller will be introduced by Greg Buckley, whose son, Lance Corporal Greg Buckley, Jr., was one of three Marines killed in a “Green on Blue” insider attack on his military base in the Helmand province, Afghanistan on Aug 10.

Related:
ACT! For America is Better Known as Hate! For America

Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer Thinks Garibaldi is Nathan Lean

Spencer resembles someone here.

by Garibaldi

Hate group leader, Far-right Catholic fanatic and anti-Muslim Crusader/terrorist-inspirer, Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer of Our Lady of the Cedars Church, a full-time paid shill for racist David Horowitz has been pretty sore that I exposed the fact he is an ordained deacon. The only person that he should be upset at however is himself, he’s the one who irresponsibly left an internet trail that could easily be found by anyone with basic google searching abilities.

It is understandable why Rev. Deacon Spencer, who claims to be an objective “reporter” on so-called “Islamic violence” was so upset, any remaining veneer of “objectivity” and feigned concern for “freedom” was permanently abolished; once again Robert Spencer’s sectarianism was exposed through his own words and deeds.

This point is buttressed in a post yesterday by Rev. Deacon Spencer in FrontPageMagRag, it is the first post by Rev. Spencer on new Pope Francis I. What does the good Deacon have to say? Well, he slams the Second Vatican council’s positive statements regarding Islam as reflecting “the outlook of a vanished age,” equal in its irrelevance as statements by the likes of Pope Benedict XIV of the 18th century and Pope Callixtus III of the 15th century. (By the way, Rev. Spencer is opposed to Vatican II for more reasons than just statements regarding Islam).

Bizarrely, Spencer still cites the two Popes quite approvingly, the hostility they had towards Islam and Muslims is strikingly evident in two quotes Spencer reproduces,

…Pope Benedict XIV, in 1754, reaffirmed an earlier prohibition on Albanian Catholics giving their children “Turkish or Mohammedan names” in baptism by pointing out that not even Protestants or Orthodox were stooping so low: “None of the schismatics and heretics has been rash enough to take a Mohammedan name, and unless your justice abounds more than theirs, you shall not enter the kingdom of God.” Pope Callixtus III, in a somewhat similar spirit, in 1455 vowed to “exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet in the East.”

Spencer absurdly believes the Vatican II reforms are in parity with quotes about “extirpating” Islam. Look up “Extirpate” in the dictionary, it still means “to root out and destroy completely.”

It appears Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer is setting himself up for a lifetime of disappointment. Pope Francis I will not be the kind of fanatical anti-Islam/Muslims-rolling-back-Vatican-II-type-pope that Spencer wants him to be. After all, the new pope is named after St. Francis of Assisi whose two chief concerns were to convert people to Christianity and to help the poor.

In fact, St. Francis came to oppose the Crusades (read: The Saint and the Sultan by Paul Moses) which Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer falls all over himself to defend, as he loves to remind us of the Crusader slogan, God wills it!

The story goes that St. Francis’ parents wanted him to go out on the Crusade so that he could be knighted.

He later set out for the Crusades in Northern Africa, but while on his way to join up with his batallion he heard a voice that asked him where he was going.

Francis responded “to the Crusades” and the voice asked him “why he served the squire instead of the Master.” The voice told him to return to Assisi where he would be told what to do. Later, after much prayer and penance, Francis was praying at a small chapel outside of Assisi, San Damiano and he thought he heard a voice that came from the crucifix. The voice said, “Francis, go repair my Church, can’t you see that it’s falling into ruins.”

The new Pope Francis I will focus on repairing the Catholic Church which is struggling in many ways and will not focus on breeding Crusader-esque civilizational conflict.

Rev. Deacon Spencer thinks I am Aslan Media editor Nathan Lean, I reveal my true identity

Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer’s irrelevance both to Catholicism and scholarship on Islam is only matched by his delusional indulgence in conspiracy theory. Unable and unwilling to respond to numerous Loonwatch rebuttals of his faulty pseudo-scholarship and “police blotter reporting,” and a very long outstanding fear to debate Danios has now given way to Spencer claiming to have uncovered my identity–unbeknownst to me I am actually supposed to be Aslan Media editor Nathan Lean!

What is Rev. Spencer’s smoking gun? A cross-post from the hate site Logan’s Warning claiming “evidence” that I, Garibaldi, am Nathan Lean. Recall the only time we’ve mentioned Logan’s Warning, a post titled, Amusing Islamophobia Blog Wars: Logan’s Warning vs. Brigitte Gabriel, in which Christopher Logan attacked Brigitte Gabriel for even hinting that there might be such a thing as a “moderate Muslim.” The heresy! Logan’s website is replete with an abundance of commenters who call for Crusading violence against Muslims and racism against Arabs, as was shown in screenshots in my post.

So it’s no surprise that Spencer would cross-post from Logan’s Warning, as we know “birds of a feather flock together.” It is also unsurprising that Spencer, with a track record for weak scholarship would be so gullibly convinced by Christopher Logan’s “evidence.”

Logan’s “evidence”:

Evidence 1:
Recently in writing about Mr. Spencer, Garibaldi wrote this in a comment on his own article about Spencer’s private life: 

GaribaldiOfLoonwatch Mod Leftwing_Muslim_Alliance • 13 days ago

He is not celibate, he’s married. In the course of digging on the internet, I also learned the name of his wife and children, though that isn’t really germane to the discussion so I won’t advertise it.

Who else has dug on the Internet and found the names of Mr. Spencer’s wife and children? Nathan Lean. Spencer has written of Lean: Nigeria Jihadists threaten country’s top spies by publishing their home addresses and names of family 

Four months after that, he sent Mr. Spencer an email calling him a “dumb fuck” and adding “But, having a look at this, I kind of pity you,” which was followed by a link containing a photo of a woman in the same city. The woman has the same surname Spencer; apparently Lean thought she was his wife.

Spencer apparently thinks this is evidence. Anyone who has access to google can find out the names of Rev. Deacon Spencer’s family, it’s all over the internet. I thought Spencer was supposed to be in mortal fear for his life? If so he’s doing a poor job of covering up the identities of his family and place of residence. The fact is we have had people who’ve wanted to share information regarding his personal life and whereabouts since 2010.

One commenter on Spencerwatch named “Abdullah” wrote on the site in 2010 saying:

Abdullah says:

I have all the information on Spencer, his address, real date of birth, and information on his family. I want nothing more than to share it, please e-mail me.

We responded to Abdullah by letting him know that we were not interested in Spencer’s personal information:

admin says:

Abdullah,

That will be unnecessary. We have no interest in Spencer’s private life. We are only interested in exposing the shallow, deceptive, and bigoted nature of his anti-Muslim work.

– SW Admin

My comment is consistent with our long-held position that our only interest is rebutting and exposing Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer’s faulty arguments, lies, hate, deception and distortions, we can care less about Spencer’s family.

Evidence 2:
Garibaldi wrote of Mr. Spencer in a comment:

But the shaggy walrus beard and so forth indicates its him.

Reza Aslan said to Mr. Spencer: The Incredilbe Reza Aslan automated insult generator

I told you. I’m into women not walruses.

Nathan Lean works for Aslan.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I freely admit here and now that I actually picked up the walrus reference from my interview with Reza Aslan, it still gives me a chuckle!

Evidence 3:
Garibaldi interviewed Aslan for Loonwatch. Most of the interview was made up of nasty ad hominem attacks on Mr. Spencer: http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/11/exclusive-loonwatch-interview-with-reza-aslan/

I’ve also interviewed Haroon Moghul. Does that mean I’am Haroon Moghul as well? And why am I Nathan Lean and not Reza Aslan? Or maybe I am all three-in-one, like a super stealth Islamist-Leftist trinity?

Evidence 4:
Jonathan Schanzer wrote a scathing review of Lean’s book for the Wall Street Journal. Loonwatch published a petulant and defensive response piece viciously attacking Schanzer. Who wrote it? Garibaldi.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/01/bush-era-neo-con-schmuck-jonathan-schanzer-shills-for-nasty-islamophobia-movement/

Yes, Schanzer did get the vicious Garibaldi treatment, but that was more so because he’s a Bush era, warmongering neo-Con schmuck who wrote an Islamophobia-denial piece in the mainstream Wall Street Journal that sought to exonerate war criminals like his former boss George W. Bush and Islamophobe pals such as Daniel Pipes and the useful idiot Zuhdi Jasser. I fail to see how this can be described as evidence and not more appropriately as “worthless conjecture 4.”

Evidence 5:
Nathan Lean has frequently called for opponents of jihad terror to be denied free speech rights:

Editor-in-Chief of moderate Aslan media endorses cyber terrorism

Nathan Lean is a Thug

Garibaldi wrote a piece at Loonwatch celebrating the vandalism of AFDI’s anti-jihad ads:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/09/mona-el-tahawy-and-spray-painting-pamela-gellers-hate-ads/

Reza Aslan also called for that vandalism: Reza Aslan Calls for fascist vandalism of AFDI pro-freedom ads 

Loonwatch is actually consistent in its opposition to hacking, we ourselves have been victim to vile hatemongering “counterjihad” hackers. As for my article it actually did not celebrate Mona Eltahawy’s protest of the racist AFDI/SIOA hate ads. In fact I was critical of her, writing,

Mona’s method of protest was therefore ineffective, aesthetically unappealing and not the best expression of street art. It is unclear if Mona was going to spraypaint a message before her confrontation with Hall, but using a hot pink spraypaint can to completely erase or cover the hate ad, which is what she was doing, is a bad way to register such a protest. It is poorly planned, poorly executed and at the end of the day strays from the goal of highlighting the most important aspect of such a protest: the message.

I happily admit however that I am not really moved to condemn any protest against the racist AFDI/SIOA hate ads. Just as I wouldn’t condemn protests against ads describing Native Americans as “savages,” or Blacks as “N—–s.”

Interestingly, this most recent foray into conspiracy theory by Rev. Deacon Spencer wasn’t even convincing to Spencer’s most ardent fans. Kinana of Khaybar, in what could be the most understated comment on JihadWatch ever wrote,

This is entertaining, but to me does not add up to sufficient evidence that Nathan Lean is Garibaldi.

One also has to wonder if Logan and Spencer even thought about asking themselves why Nathan Lean, who has been speaking, writing and publishing publicly for quite some time would decide he needed to be anonymous? He is already calling out Spencer, Geller and other Islamophobes under his own name.

As for my real identity…

I am actually….

<drum roll>….

the second love child of Malcolm X and Stanley Ann Dunham, and my name is Barack Hasan Shabazz!

There you go, the secret is finally out! Thanks a lot Spencer!

JihadWatch Zombie Eric Allen Bell Returns and Adds Antisemitism to the Islamophobia

Eric_Allen_Bell_Jamie_Glazov

The “Glazov gangbangers”

by Garibaldi

Eric Allen Bell (aka Eric Edborg), who has been mostly silent over the past few months, (no doubt taking a “sabbatical” from his self-proclaimed “jihad against jihad” again), returned to the looniverse of hatemongering and kooky conspiracy theories.

This time Bell is relishing in antisemitism and putting forward ideas picked straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Bell got into it with some of his assumedly now “former” Facebook followers. Bell tells “Clark Banner” that he is just speaking truth to power, exposing the social taboo surrounding “Jewish control of banking and media,”

EAB jew conspiracy #1

Bell clearly doesn’t know what conspiracy theories are either, they are not simply “theories without evidence.” What he is referring to is just one category of the obvious phony and fake conspiracies that exist. Usually conspiracy theories are based on some evidence, though such evidence varies in degree of reliability, factualness and the way it is framed and contextualized to create a narrative.

Bell also believes the Oscars are part of a Jewish supremacist conspiracy,

EAB jew conspiracy #3

“Erick Morgan” used to “look up to” the old bigot Eric Allen Bell when he railed against Muslims being intellectually and genetically inferior and called for the nuking of Muslim holy places but now he finds Bell repulsive:

EAB jew conspiracy #4

This protege of Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer has exposed himself to have some very kooky and racist beliefs not only about people of Muslim background and the religion of Islam but also about Jews and Judaism. Will we hear swift condemnations from Rev. Deacon Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller who hailed Bell as a former “liberal” who saw the light of “Counterjihad?” Aren’t they embarrassed and ashamed of supporting and allying with someone who supports this vile antisemitic nonsense?

Don’t hold your breathe. They will likely continue their strategy of pretending such views aren’t held by their friend.

Related:

Eric Allen Bell discovers that ‘Jewish supremacists’ control the media and the banks

Islam a ‘dangerous and totalitarian ideology’: Wilders

Wilders Melbourne meeting-1

Islam a ‘dangerous and totalitarian ideology’: Wilders

Far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders has called the Prophet Muhammad a murderer and used Anzac soldiers as an example of the courage needed to speak out against Islam at a speech to Melbourne supporters.

Tight security surrounded Mr Wilders’ hour-long speech to members of the ultra-conservative local group the Q Society of Australia at La Mirage reception centre in Somerton in Melbourne’s north on Tuesday night.

Fifty police, some on horseback, separated about 100 vocal but peaceful protesters standing on the Hume Highway verge outside the venue.

Protest organiser Feiyi Zhang said: “we’re here to show we will not stand for Wilders’ racism and Islamophobia”. She said his speech could incite violence against Muslims “and general fear of Islam”.

Protester Nadia Shamsuddin, a doctor and a Muslim, said she was “repulsed” by Wilders’ visit and views. “His promotion of oppression and racism is appalling in the civilised world”.

Her husband Raj Rao said: “Wilders accuses Islam of promoting hatred and violence but I think that’s what he’s doing.” Mr Rao said the message of the Qu’ran was of “peace and submission to God”.

Inside the venue, audience member Inez, a Dutch immigrant, said she had come from Ringwood to hear Wilders, “because we have built this country into something very, very beautiful but I can slowly see it getting spoiled by people who want to impose their beliefs and laws. When I hear Muslim people wanted to introduce Sharia law here, I shudder. I thought it too horrible to contemplate.”

Mr Wilders spoke to a ballroom usually used for multicultural weddings and debutante balls. The crowd met his speech with standing ovations, laughter at his jokes and applause.

Mr Wilders said the Prophet Muhammad was a savage leader of a gang of robbers that raped and murdered and mutilated its opponents including the Jews in 7th century Medina and violence had carried on to Islam’s modern day supporters.

He said anyone who criticised Islam “is in grave personal danger” and “we cannot continue to accept this”. European countries such as the Netherlands are “in the process of losing our cultural identity and our freedom and I am warning Australia about the true nature of Islam. It’s not a religion; it’s a dangerous and totalitarian ideology.”

The Age, 20 February 2013

By contrast The Australian – which has already given Wilders a platform to incite hatred of Islam, with a much wider audience than the tiny Q Society could ever drum up – accuses protestors of provoking violent clashes outside the venue.

In addition to providing extensive, and entirely uncritical, coverage of Wilders’ Melbourne speech, the Murdoch-owned newspaper also publishes an editorial (“Geert Wilders’s right to speak”) which states:

Mr Wilders’s views on the impact of large-scale Islamic immigration in Europe and the challenge that it presents to established cultures and the obligations of citizenship in Western countries are part of an important debate that Australians should be aware of.

Mr Wilders is the founder and leader of The Netherlands Party for Freedom. His political mission is to halt what he says is the “Islamisation” of his country. He argues that Islamism is a totalitarian political ideology enforced by violence and rigid adherence to it, quite different from the faith of Islam. In his article in The Australian earlier this week, Mr Wilders outlined his views that many will find challenging, but they were respectfully put and hardly deserve the vilification he has received from extremists.

Mr Wilders is welcome here, provided that he abides by the law, as all visitors must. Our laws include prohibiting racial vilification and inciting violence, but there is no suggestion he has come close to violating them. So far, it is his opponents who have displayed the illiberalism they accuse him of.

Wilders holds that “Islamism is a totalitarian political ideology enforced by violence and rigid adherence to it, quite different from the faith of Islam”? Where did they get that from? There are of course Islamophobes who claim to make a distinction between Islamism and Islam, but Wilders is emphatically not one of them. In his article for The Australian, he made his views quite clear:

Contrary to what many Westerners think, Islam, rather than a religion, is a totalitarian political ideology. It is an ideology because it aims for an Islamic state and wants to impose sharia on all of us. It is totalitarian because it is not voluntary: once you are in, you cannot get out. Unlike genuine religions, Islam also makes demands on non-Muslims. We, too, are marked for death if we criticise it.

You can only conclude that The Australian‘s editorial writers don’t read their own newspaper.

Australia Visit Prompts Condemnation of Wilders

geertwilderschild

Geert Wilders as a child? (via. www.antibogan.wordpress.com)

Australia visit prompts condemnation of Wilders

Far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders could learn a lot about the strengths of multiculturalism during his Australian visit, community and religious leaders say.

Mr Wilders will give speeches in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth this month about what he calls the “Islamisation of Australia”.

A coalition of 24 groups – including the AFL and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne – issued a joint statement in Melbourne on Monday, reinforcing their support for Victoria’s “multicultural and multifaith community”.

“We have a collective responsibility to respect our fellow citizens and preserve the social cohesion and harmony that characterise Victoria and makes our society great,” the statement says. “We welcome challenging ideas and debate, however, inciting hatred and animosity towards specific cultural or faith-based communities has no place in Victoria.”

State Multicultural Affairs Minister Nicholas Kotsiras says Mr Wilders could learn a lot from his visit to the state. “I find it amazing that someone could travel 16,000 kilometres to tell us why he and his party have failed in his own country,” he told reporters in Melbourne. “If he wants to come to learn and to educate himself about the success of multiculturalism and diversity, Victoria is the place to be.”

AAP, 18 February 2013

See also “Cold reception for anti-Islam campaigner”, SBS, 18 February 2013

There will be protests against Wilders’ visit in MelbourneSydneyand Perth.

Most Terrorist Plots in the US Aren’t Invented by Al Qaeda — They’re Manufactured by the FBI

FBI-director-J-Edgar-Hoov-001

The FBI has manufactured the most terrorist plots in the USA.

Most Terrorist Plots in the US Aren’t Invented by Al Qaeda — They’re Manufactured by the FBI

Trevor Aaronson (AlterNet)

Antonio Martinez was a punk. The twenty-two-year-old from Baltimore was chunky, with a wide nose and jet-black hair pulled back close to his scalp and tied into long braids that hung past his shoulders. He preferred to be called Muhammad Hussain, the name he gave himself following his conversion to Islam. But his mother still called him Tony, and she couldn’t understand her son’s burning desire to be the Maryland Mujahideen.

As a young man, Martinez had been angry and lost. He’d dropped out of Laurel High School, in Prince George’s County, Maryland, and spent his teens as a small-time thief in the Washington, D.C., suburbs. By the age of sixteen, he’d been charged with armed robbery. In February 2008, at the age of eighteen, he tried to steal a car. Catholic University doctoral student Daniel Tobin was looking out of the window of his apartment one day when he saw a man driving off in his car. Tobin gave chase, running between apartment buildings and finally catching up to the stolen vehicle. He opened the passenger-side door and got in. Martinez, in the driver’s seat, dashed out and ran away on foot. Jumping behind the wheel, Tobin followed the would-be car thief. “You may as well give up running,” he yelled at Martinez. Martinez was apprehended and charged with grand theft of a motor vehicle—he had stolen the vehicle using an extra set of car keys which had gone missing when someone had broken into Tobin’s apartment earlier. However, prosecutors dropped the charges against Martinez after Tobin failed to appear in court.

Despite the close call, Martinez’s petty crimes continued. One month after the car theft, he and a friend approached a cashier at a Safeway grocery store, acting as if they wanted to buy potato chips. When the cashier opened the register, Martinez and his friend grabbed as much money as they could and ran out of the store. The cashier and store manager chased after them, and later identified the pair to police. Martinez pleaded guilty to theft of one hundred dollars and received a ninety-day suspended sentence, plus six months of probation.

Searching for greater meaning in his life, Martinez was baptized and became a Christian when he was twenty-one years old, but he didn’t stick with the religion. “He said he tried the Christian thing. He just really didn’t understand it,” said Alisha Legrand, a former girlfriend. Martinez chose Islam instead. On his Facebook page, Martinez wrote that he was “just a yung brotha from the wrong side of the tracks who embraced Islam.” But for reasons that have never been clear to his family and friends, Martinez drifted toward a violent, extremist brand of Islam. When the FBI discovered him, Martinez was an angry extremist mouthing off on Facebook about violence, with misspelled posts such as, “The sword is cummin the reign of oppression is about 2 cease inshallah.” Based on the Facebook postings alone, an FBI agent gave an informant the “green light” to get to know Martinez and determine if he had a propensity for violence. In other words, to see if he was dangerous.

The government was setting the trap.

On the evening of December 2, 2010, Martinez was in another Muslim’s car as they drove through Baltimore. A hidden device recorded their conversation. His mother had called, and Martinez had just finished talking to her on his cell phone. He was aggravated. “She wants me to be like everybody else, being in school, working,” he told his friend. “For me, it’s different. I have this zeal for deen and she doesn’t understand that.” Martinez’s mother didn’t know that her son had just left a meeting with a purported Afghan-born terrorist who had agreed to provide him with a car bomb. But she wasn’t the only one in the dark that night. Martinez himself didn’t know his new terrorist friend was an undercover agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and that the man driving the car—a man he’d met only a few weeks earlier—was a paid informant for federal law enforcement.

Five days later, Martinez met again with the man he believed to be a terrorist. The informant was there, too. They were all, Martinez believed, brothers in arms and in Islam. In a parking lot near the Armed Forces Career Center on Baltimore National Pike, Martinez, the informant, and the undercover FBI agent piled into an SUV, where the undercover agent showed Martinez the device that would detonate the car bomb and how to use it. He then unveiled to the twenty-two-year-old the bomb in the back of the SUV and demonstrated what he’d need to do to activate it. “I’m ready, man,” Martinez said. “It ain’t like you seein’  it on the news. You gonna be there. You gonna hear the bomb go off. You gonna be, uh, shooting, gettin’ shot at. It’s gonna be real. … I’m excited, man.”

That night, Martinez, who had little experience behind the wheel of a car, needed to practice driving the SUV around the empty parking lot. Once he felt comfortable doing what most teenagers can do easily, Martinez and his associates devised a plan: Martinez would park the bomb-on-wheels in the parking lot outside the military recruiting center. One of his associates would then pick him up, and they’d drive together to a vantage point where Martinez could detonate the bomb and delight in the resulting chaos and carnage.

The next morning, the three men put their plan into action. Martinez hopped into the SUV and activated the bomb, as he’d been instructed, and then drove to the military recruiting station. He parked right in front. The informant, trailing in another car, picked up Martinez and drove him to the vantage point, just as planned. Everything was falling into place, and Martinez was about to launch his first attack in what he hoped would be for him a lifetime of jihad against the only nation he had ever known.

Looking out at the military recruiting station, Martinez lifted the detonation device and triggered the bomb. Smiling, he watched expectantly. Nothing happened. Suddenly, FBI agents rushed in and arrested the man they’d later identify in court records as “Antonio Martinez a/k/a Muhammad Hussain.” Federal prosecutors in Maryland charged Martinez with attempted murder of federal officers and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. He faced at least thirty-five years in prison if convicted at trial.

“This is not Tony,” a woman identifying herself as Martinez’s mother told a reporter after the arrest. “I think he was brainwashed with that Islam crap.” Joseph Balter, a federal public defender, told the court during a detention hearing that FBI agents had entrapped Martinez, whom he referred to by his chosen name. The terrorist plot was, Balter said, “the creation of the government—a creation which was implanted into Mr. Hussain’s mind.” He added: “There was nothing provided which showed that Mr. Hussain had any ability whatsoever to carry out any kind of plan.”

Despite Balter’s claims, a little more than a year after his indictment, Martinez chose not to challenge the government’s charges in court. On January 26, 2012, Martinez dropped his entrapment defense and pleaded guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction under a deal that will require him to serve twenty-five years in prison—more years than he’s been alive. Neither Martinez nor Balter would comment on the reasons they chose a plea agreement, though in a sentencing hearing, Balter told the judge he believed the entire case could have been avoided had the FBI counseled, rather than encouraged, Martinez.

The U.S. Department of Justice touted the conviction as another example of the government keeping citizens safe from terrorists. “We are catching dangerous suspects before they strike, and we are investigating them in a way that maximizes the liberty and security of law-abiding citizens,” U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein said in a statement announcing Martinez’s plea agreement. “That is what the American people expect of the Justice Department, and that is what we aim to deliver.”

Indeed, that is exactly what the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been delivering throughout the decade since the attacks of September 11, 2001. But whether it’s what the American people expect is questionable, because most Americans today have no idea that since 9/11, one single organization has been responsible for hatching and financing more terrorist plots in the United States than any other. That organization isn’t Al Qaeda, the terrorist network founded by Osama bin Laden and responsible for the spectacular 2001 attacks on New York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. And it isn’t Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Al-Shabaab, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or any of the other more than forty U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations. No, the organization responsible for more terrorist plots over the last decade than any other is the FBI. Through elaborate and expensive sting operations involving informants and undercover agents posing as terrorists, the FBI has arrested and the Justice Department has prosecuted dozens of men government officials say posed direct—but by no means immediate or credible—threats to the United States.

Read the rest…

Kookie Pastor Pat Robertson Babbles About ‘Demonic Islam’

pat_robertson_earthquake_in_haiti

Poor Pastor Pat, everywhere he goes he sees devils and evil. (h/t: JD, KP)

Pat Robertson Claims Islam Is ‘Demonic’ And ‘Not A Religion’ But An Economic System (VIDEO)

(Huffington Post)

Controversial conservative Christian Pat Robertson doubled down Tuesday on claims that Islam is not a religion.

According to Right Wing Watch, Robertson, an elder statesman of the evangelical movement, made the inflammatory claim during an episode of his TV program, “The 700 Club.”

“Every time you look up — these are angry people, it’s almost like it’s demonic that is driving them to kill and to maim and to destroy and to blow themselves up,” Robertson said of Islam. “It’s a religion of chaos.”

He went on to say, “I hardly think to call it a religion, it’s more of — well, it’s an economic and political system with a religious veneer.”

Pamela Geller’s False Claim that Muslims Curse Christians and Jews in Their Daily Prayers

Pamela Geller’s False Claim that Muslims Curse Christians and Jews in Their Daily Prayers

by Sheila Musaji
Pamela Geller said Now I also believe that a true translation, an accurate translation of the Koran, is really not available in English, according to many of the Islamic scholars that I’ve spoken to.  That’s deeply troubling.  And I don’t think that many westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they’re cursing Christians and Jews five times a day.  I don’t think they know that. in a 10/8/2010 article in the New York Times.

Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic wondered about the accuracy of this statement and did a little research:

I sent some of Geller’s quotes to my friend Reuel Gerecht, a genuine expert on Islam, to see what he thought of them. Reuel, as many of you know, is no apologist for radical Islamism; quite the opposite. He believes we are at war with a dangerous ideology. But he also has respect for Islam, and a great deal of knowledge of it. Here is what he says about Geller’s assertions:

I have to plead an embarrassing ignorance about Pamela Geller.  I was well aware of the Internet-driven opposition to Feisal Abd ar-Rauf’s Ground Zero/Park 51 mosque, but had not entered her name into my memory.  I don’t read blogs much—except Goldblog and those that publish me—and I was more than a little taken back when Jeffrey sent me a note containing comments by Ms. Geller about English translations of the Qur’an.  The intersection of politics, public policy, and scholarship isn’t always pretty, and we are most often fortunate that scholars don’t write our domestic and foreign policies.   However, there is a certain deference that activists must give to scholars when they tread on what is clearly academic terrain.  A good cause—and Ms. Geller’s general concern about the harm that violent Islamic militants can do is an estimable fight—is no excuse for agitprop and what amounts to a slur against some of the greatest scholars of the twentieth century.  According to the New York Times, Ms. Geller has stated:

Now I also believe that a true translation, an accurate translation of the Koran, is really not available in English, according to many of the Islamic scholars that I’ve spoken to.  That’s deeply troubling.  And I don’t think that many westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they’re cursing Christians and Jews five times a day.  I don’t think they know that.

Let’s take the Qur’an first, Muslim prayers second.  Concerning the translation of the Muslim Holy Book, who might these Islamic scholars be?  Since Ms. Geller is without Arabic, it’s impossible for her to compare the original to a translation.  She must depend upon others, who, if I follow Ms. Geller, are involved in a conspiracy to hide the ugly truth about Islam.  If the translations were more “accurate,” we would all see what’s apparent to Ms. Geller, who ascertained the truth despite the blinding scholarly conspiracy.  One has to ask whether Ms. Geller has perused the translation masterpiece by Cambridge’s late great A.J. Arberry or my personal favorite, the awesomely erudite, more literal translation and commentary by Edinburgh’s late great Richard Bell?  Both gentlemen are flag-waving members of Edward Said’s most detested species—Orientalists.  Now if you look at these translations—especially if you look at Bell’s, which is blessed with exhaustive notes in a somewhat complicated formatting—even the uninitiated can get an idea that Muhammad had trouble with Christians and especially Jews during his life.  If you look at the Qur’anic commentary by Edinburgh’s late great William Montgomery Watt (another Orientalist), who was always attentive to Muslim sensibilities in his writings, you can also find in clear English Muhammad’s unpleasant ruminations about Christians and Jews.

Now what all of this means to contemporary Islamic militancy is a very long discussion, for which I suspect that Ms. Geller doesn’t have abundant patience.  Islam has been having awful problems absorbing modernity; its travails so far—let us underscore—have been less bloody than what we witnessed as Christianity modernized.  Any non-Muslim certainly has the right to study, question, and criticize the Islamic faith, as Muslims have the (well-exercised) right to let loose against what they see as the imperfections of Christianity, Judaism, and humanist secularism (the West’s dominant faith).   As Iran’s robust, astonishing intellectual wars over the last twenty years have shown, it’s good for Muslims and non-Muslims not to pull their punches.  Muslims should never be treated as children, which is a debilitating disposition found widely now on the American Left.  (President Obama has not helped.)   But the great Islamic scholars of the past did not lie.  There is no conspiracy.  We are blessed with illuminating English translations of the Muslim Holy Book.  Ms. Geller might consider blogging less, and reading more.

And about Muslim prayer:  I certainly have no perfect way of knowing what Muslims think when they pray, but I really do think they know what they’re doing.  If westernized Muslims are facing the Almighty, they know what’s in their hearts.  Devout Muslims need not hate Jews and Christians to worship the Creator.  Christians have slaughtered Jews through the centuries.  But it would be theologically atrocious to believe that the Christian message requires Jewish blood. (Christians’ killing Jews so often did provoke some Christians to question the foundation of their faith—a theologically estimable exercise.)  The Prophet Muhammad is certainly a different kind of historical figure than Jesus, but it should not be startling to discover that Muslims through the centuries have not seen the prophet’s slaughter of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina as a mainstay of their creed.  In my experience—and I’m intuiting here—most Muslims do not think about Jews and Christians at all when they pray.  Suffering, in all its merciless variety, takes center stage, I suspect.   When I’ve watched Muslim pilgrims come to Sunni and Shiite tombs and sacred sites in Egypt,  Turkey, and Iraq, I’ve not seen a conquering people.  I’ve usually just seen misery and the human hope that good fortune will come with a better heart.   I’ve seen fraternity among a men who live in lands where fraternal behavior is rare.  Ms. Geller would do well to travel more.   It’s a very good and essential cause to fight jihadism, but such a struggle should not incline us to maul Islamic history or to treat Muslims as if they were merely a walking version of this surah or that legal treatise.   Christians and Jews and atheists are much more than the sum of their parts.   So, too, are Muslims.

After this exchange, Geller’s partner, Robert Spencer published a defense of Geller’s statement in which he brings in “translations” like the Hilali-Khan, commentaries and interpretations as if they represent what most Muslims (or particularly American Muslims, or “westernized Muslims” as Geller calls them) understand about the meaning of Surah Fatiha.  The Hilali-Khan translation is an extremist interpretation of the Qur’an produced in Saudi Arabia and given out free.  I wrote about the Hilali-Khan translation at length here.  Here are a few passages from that article:

The number of comments in parenthesis in this particular translation is more than excessive, and instead of clarifying the text or explaining a word or phrase that cannot be easily translated into English, these comments make the text very difficult to follow and often distort rather than amplify the meaning.

The appendices contain discussions of Christian versus Muslim beliefs that read more like a polemical debate and really do not belong as part of a translation.

I will give just a few examples of the difficulties with this translation.  Sadly, I could give many more examples, but these should sufice to show the extremist character of this translation.

Beginning immediately with Surah Fatiha 1:1 (the opening chapter of the Qur’an) we find a translation not to be found anywhere else:

“Guide us to the Straight Way.  The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who have earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).” (HK translation 1:1-7)

This can only give the impression to any non-Muslim or Muslim who either does not have fluency in Arabic or access to individuals with competency in Classical Qur’anic Arabic that the Qur’an denounces all Jews and Christians.  This is a great untruth.

This unique translation is then followed by an extremely long footnote which justifies this hateful translation based on traditions from texts that go back to the Middle Ages (Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi, Tabari) as if these are the only interpretations, and without any discussion of the history of these commentaries and the hadiths on which they are based.

…  In the interests of preserving the purity of the Qur’an as much as possible for non-Arabic speakers and also as a means to combat the tirades of professional Islam bashers and Muslim haters, I would strongly recommend that every copy of the Hilali-Khan translation be removed from every mosque in the U.S.  …  This current crisis (and many others), I believe is a direct result of such translations as the Hilali-Khan which have been responsible for influencing some Muslims with extremist interpretations (and also providing them “justification” for criminal actions), and for providing Islamophobes with “proof” of the supposed “savagery” of Islam.  Basically, this translation (and others like it) are propaganda coming out of Saudi Arabia which attempts to spread their particular supremacist, divisive, bigoted, and very dangerous interpretation of Islam.

There are only two groups who equate jihad and terrorism – the terrorists and the Islamophobes.

Across the world, even in countries where Muslims and their non-Muslim neighbors have lived together for centuries in peace, we are seeing violence against churches and against minorities, and seeing violent non-Islamic responses to the provocations of Islamophobes.  Why?

I believe that propaganda such as the Hilali-Khan translation and other materials coming primarily out of Saudi Arabia are one of the root causes.

We need a counter-narrative, not only to the Islamophobes, but to the Muslim extremists, and our scholars and community leaders need to help get the message of traditional Islam out to the masses.

I believe that it is time for ordinary Muslims to go into their local mosque or Islamic bookstore and see if this translation is there, and if it is to ask the Imam or mosque leadership to remove it immediately and dispose of it in the appropriate Islamic manner.  And, it is time for the leadership of national organizations to speak out loudly and clearly condemning such translations and materials.  The Saudi’s may provide “free” copies of this translation, but there is a cost, and we are all paying it.

Here is a transliteration and translation of Sura Fatiha by Shakh Kabir Helminski of the Threshold Society:

Bismillaah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem
Al hamdu lillaahi rabbil ‘alameen
Ar-Rahman ar-Raheem Maaliki yaumid Deen
Iyyaaka na’abudu wa iyyaaka nasta’een
Ihdinas siraatal mustaqeem
Siraatal ladheena an ‘amta’ alaihim
Ghairil maghduubi’ alaihim waladaaleen
Aameen

In the name of God, the infinitely Compassionate and Merciful.
Praise be to God, Lord of all the worlds.
The Compassionate, the Merciful. Ruler on the Day of Reckoning.
You alone do we worship, and You alone do we ask for help.
Guide us on the straight path,
the path of those who have received your grace;
not the path of those who have brought down wrath, nor of those who wander astray.
Amen.

Here is the introduction to this verse from the translation by Muhammad Asad

THIS SURAH is also called Fatihat al-Kitab (“The Opening of the Divine Writ”), Umm al-Kitab (“The Essence of the Divine Writ”), Surat al-Hamd (“The Surah of Praise”), Asas al-Qur’an (“The Foundation of the Qur’an”), and is known by several other names as well. It ismentioned elsewhere in the Qur’an as As-Sab’ al-Mathani (“The Seven Oft-Repeated[Verses]”) because it is repeated several times in the course of each of the five daily prayers.According to Bukhari, the designation Umm al-Kitab was given to it by the Prophet himself,and this in view of the fact that it contains, in a condensed form, all the fundamental principleslaid down in the Qur’an: the principle of God’s oneness and uniqueness, of His being theoriginator and fosterer of the universe, the fount of all life-giving grace, the One to whom manis ultimately responsible, the only power that can really guide and help; the call to righteousaction in the life of this world (“guide us the straight way”); the principle of life after deathand of the organic consequences of man’s actions and behaviour (expressed in the term “Dayof Judgment”); the principle of guidance through God’s message-bearers (evident in thereference to “those upon whom God has bestowed His blessings”) and, flowing from it, the principle of the continuity of all true religions (implied in the allusion to people who havelived – and erred – in the past); and, finally, the need for voluntary self-surrender to the will of the Supreme Being and, thus, for worshipping Him alone. It is for this reason that this surahhas been formulated as a prayer, to be constantly repeated and reflected upon by the believer.“The Opening” was one of the earliest revelations bestowed upon the Prophet. Someauthorities (for instance, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib) were even of the opinion that it was the very firstrevelation; but this view is contradicted by authentic Traditions quoted by both Bukhari andMuslim, which unmistakably show that the first five verses of surah 96 (“The Germ-Cell”)constituted the beginning of revelation. It is probable, however, that whereas the earlier revelations consisted of only a few verses each, “The Opening” was the first surah revealed tothe Prophet in its entirety at one time: and this would explain the view held by ‘Ali.

Here is Asad’s translation and commentary

In the name of God, The Most Gracious, The Dispenser of Grace:
ALL PRAISE is due to God alone, the Sustainer of all the worlds,
the Most Gracious,the Dispenser of Grace,
Lord of the Day of Judgment!
Thee alone do we worship; and unto Thee alone do we turn for aid.
Guide us the straight way, the way of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings,
not of those who have been condemned [by Thee], nor of those who go astray!

According to most of the authorities, this invocation (which occurs at the beginning of everysurah with the exception of surah 9) constitutes an integral part of “The Opening” and is,therefore, numbered as verse 1. In all other instances, the invocation “in the name of God” precedes the surah as such, and is not counted among its verses. – Both the divine epithets rahman and rahim are derived from the noun rahmah, which signifies “mercy”, “compassion”,“loving tenderness” and, more comprehensively, “grace”. From the very earliest times, Islamic scholars have endeavoured to define the exact shades of meaning which differentiate the two terms. The best and simplest of these explanations is undoubtedly the one advanced by Ibnal-Qayyim (as quoted in Manar I,48): the term rahman circumscribes the quality of abounding grace inherent in, and inseparable from, the concept of God’s Being, whereas rahim expresses the manifestation of that grace in, and its effect upon, His creation – in other words, an aspect of His activity.

In this instance, the term “worlds” denotes all categories of existence both in the physicaland the spiritual sense. The Arabic expression rabb – rendered by me as “Sustainer” -embraces a wide complex of meanings not easily expressed by a single term in another language.It comprises the ideas of having a just claim to the possession of anything and, consequently,authority over it, as well as of rearing, sustaining and fostering anything from its inceptionto its final completion. Thus, the head of a family is called rabb ad-dar (“master of the house”) because he has authority over it and is responsible for its maintenance; similarly, his wifeis called rabbat ad-dar (“mistress of the house”). Preceded by the definite article al, the designation rabb is applied, in the Qur’an, exclusively to God as the sole fosterer andsustainer of all creation – objective as well as conceptual – and therefore the ultimatesource of all authority.

According to almost all the commentators, God’s “condemnation” (ghadab, lit., “wrath”) is synonymous with the evil consequences which man brings upon himself by wilfully rejecting God’s guidance and acting contrary to His injunctions. Some commentators (e.g., Zamakhshari)interpret this passage as follows: “… the way of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings – those who have not been condemned [by Thee], and who do not go astray”: inother words, they regard the last two expressions as defining “those upon whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings”. Other commentators (e.g., Baghawi and Ibn Kathir) do not subscribeto this interpretation – which would imply the use of negative definitions – and understand the last verse of the surah in the manner rendered by me above. As regards the two categoriesof people following a wrong course, some of the greatest Islamic thinkers (e.g., Al-Ghazali or, in recent times, Muhammad ‘Abduh) held the view that the people described as having incurred “God’s condemnation” – that is, having deprived themselves of His grace – are thosewho have become fully cognizant of God’s message and, having understood it, have rejected it; while by “those who go astray” are meant people whom the truth has either not reached at all,or to whom it has come in so garbled and corrupted a form as to make it difficult for them.

And, before Pamela Geller gets too attached to her specious claims, she should consider that the Blessing/Benediction recited each morning by Orthodox Jews is the following“Blessed are you O God, King of the Universe, Who has not made me . . . ” and conclude, respectively, “a goy [Gentile],” “a slave,” and “a woman.”
UPDATE 6/1/2011

Another Islamophobe, Andrew Bostom has jumped on this bandwagon of insisting that the Hilali-Khan translation/commentary reflects the meaning of Surah Fatiha.

UPDATE 1/29/2012

Geller again raises this spurious issue saying: “The Muslims refer to Christians in their daily prayers as “those who are led astray” (Muslims curse Christians and Jews multiple times in daily prayers). This madness validates their contempt and supremacism.”
UPDATE 2/11/2013

Geller is nothing if not consistent.  Today she published Hamas-CAIR leads Arizona State Senate in anti-Jewish, Anti-Christian Prayer raising this same debunked issue yet again. She says:  “How many people actually know that every time Muslims get down on their knees, posteriors in the air, they are cursing Christian and Jews? Obama says, “respect it!”

All of this fury on the part of Geller (and her partner in hate Robert Spencer) was because an Arizona Imam, Anas Hlayhel, who is also the Chairman of the Arizona Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations CAIR-AZ led the Arizona State Senate’s prayer invocation with a reading of Surah al-Fatiha.

Geller & Spencer promote Muslim “collective guilt” over a FB post

Geller & Spencer promote Muslim “collective guilt” over a FB post

by Sheila Musaji
Pamela Geller posted an article Dearborn Muslim calls for killing anti-Islam protesters and her partner in the AFDI hate group posted an article with the same title.

They reprinted an article by David Wood which included a screen grab of this FaceBook post:

This is a hateful message.  The individual responsible should be ashamed.  If there are any FaceBook regulations that he has violated, he should lose his ability to post.  However, this single hateful message was all that it took for Geller & Spencer to not only post articles including the “Muslim” description, but also to tweet on the #MyJihad hashtag


Spencer asked “Will Dearborn authorities investigate Aboudi Berro? Don’t hold your breath.”  Geller said: “Islam in America. Respect it.”

So, according to them, this tweet by one individual jerk somehow is representative of “Islam in America” and this should be investigated by local law enforcement.

I wonder why their concern is always so selective, and only focuses on Muslims who behave badly.

Here are a just a few tweets from Islamophobic spammers on the #MyJihad site:









Would Geller and Spencer agree that all of these are hateful?  If so, why do such statements not concern them?  Would a headline like “Christian calls for killing Muslims” serve any purpose.  Are all Christians or all Jews somehow responsible for the bigotry of some?  Should all of these individuals also be investigated?  If they are not investigated is that “proof” of some Christian conspiracy to impose their will on non-Christians.

I doubt that they would be concerned, as some of their own AFDI/SIOA/SION leadership have previously suggested genocide, wiping out Muslim “bacteria” and “destroying Islam”.

This is pure hatred.

Petition: Remove Hate Group Leader Robert Spencer as Catholic Deacon

820698-1360108009-main

Loonwatchers please sign and spread this petition to remove hate group leader Robert Spencer as Catholic deacon to your friends and email lists.:

Remove Hate Group Leader Robert Spencer as Catholic Deacon

Target: Most Reverend Bishop Nicholas J. Samra and Eparchy of Newton
Sponsored by: Jenny Sessoms
Robert Bruce Spencer, an ordained Catholic deacon at Our Lady of the Cedars Catholic Church in Manchester, New Hampshire is classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center and other civil rights organiations as a “hate group leader.”

His writing, which targets Muslims and the religion of Islam, was cited extensively by the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, who digested Spencer’s views on Islam and slaughtered 77 people, mostly youth.

Robert Spencer is one of the individuals behind the inflammatory anti-Muslim metro and bus ads in New York, California, and Washington.

His organization, Stop the Islamization of America, was refused a trademark by the Federal Government because the group engaged in what the government deemed “hate speech.”

As Catholics and people of all faiths, we believe that our religious traditions deserves better. We believe that Mr. Spencer’s constant provocations and inflammatory comments about Muslims and their religious beliefs, as well as his associations with radical nationalist groups such as the English Defence League, cast a negative and unncessarily poor light on Our Lady of the Cedars church, the Melkite Catholic tradition, and the religion of Catholicism.

We also believe that Deacons and clergy should represent the loving spirit of God and that they have a responsibility to build bridges with people of other faiths, not burn them. We recognize that while we may have faith differences with our brothers and sisters in other traditions, those differences must be respected.

Clergy must not engage publically in confrontational battles, ideological or political, and prejudice has no place in our tradition.

We call of the Most Reverend Bishop Nicholas J. Samra and the Eparchy of Newton to carefully examine the biography of Robert Bruce Spencer, his remarks about Muslims, his blog Jihad Watch, his associations with such groups and individuals as the English Defence League and Pamela Geller, his status as a “hate group leader” and his connections to the mass murderer Anders Breivik.

We call on the Eparchy to remember that Catholics were once subjected to religious prejudice and discrimination and thus they (and especially not their clergy) should be know of its harmful effects, and the pain caused by those who fearmonger and stereotype.

We call on the Eparchy and Bishop Samra to remove Robert Bruce Spencer as a Deacon of the Our Lady of the Cedars Melkite Catholic Church in Manchester, New Hampshire. We pray that the Church will hold firm its moral obligation to be a beacon of hope and light, not division and mistrust.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned