Did AFDI’s “Savage/Jihad” hate ads inspire bus threats?

Did AFDI’s “Savage/Jihad” hate ads inspire bus threats?

by Sheila Musaji
Pamela Geller posted an article with the hysterical title CAIR’s #myjihad Chicago campaign inspires …. bus jihad – Wannabe Jihadist threatens ‘jihad’ bombing on Chicago bus.  Robert Spencer posted his own misleading article.  She includes a link to a Chicago Tribune article.  She and her partner in hate, Robert Spencer also tweeted a link to their articles using the #MyJihad hashtag, and their minions followed suit.

What is the story

The Chicago Tribune reported that a man named Caleb Russell threatened to blow up a CTA bus in Chicago and told police he was “jihad against the white devil”.  Several passengers told police that Russell made derogatory and racial remarks and threatened to “blow this (expletive) up.”

His booking photo included is quite alarming, and may speak to his mental state.  A few other news sources have posted on this, but none have any additional information.  That’s all that is known so far.

No idea if the man is a Muslim or not, no idea about his mental state, no idea about anything at all except that this incident happened.

How would Geller know his motivation or what inspired him.  Her “defeat jihad” ads have also run in Chicago.  Whether this man was influenced in any way by either of these ads is impossible to say.  However, it certainly is possible to make an educated guess.

The implication of the AFDI ads is that jihad and terrorism are synonymous which could give an ignorant person the idea that such an act was covered by the word “jihad”.

The #MyJihad campaign ads (whose motto is ““Taking back Jihad one hashtag at a time from anti-Muslim and Muslim extremists.  Taking back Islam.”)  are giving a very opposite message to both Muslim and non-Muslim extremists. See “My Jihad” #MyJihad Campaign Angers Hizb-ut Tahrir and AFDI Extremists.  Which includes the statement:

“There are only two groups who equate jihad and terrorism – the terrorists and the Islamophobes.  Neither terrorists or Islamophobes have the right to co-opt or hijack or defame the term jihad by their criminal interpretations. We reject the terrorist definition and we reject the Islamophobes definition of Jihad in favor of the traditional, legitimate, respectable, spiritual concept. JIHAD is not a dirty word.”

Which ad and which worldview is more likely to have given anyone the impression that terrorism against civilians is the meaning of jihad?

"My Jihad" campaign was sparked by AFDI/SIOA's series of hateful ads against Muslims(MyJihad.org).

Pamela Geller to Release New Anti Jihad Bus Ads in NYC | Blaze Exclusive

The original subway ad (Photo Credit: American Freedom Defense Initiative/ABC News)
Using nothing except common sense, and a heart not filled with hate, any rational person can see which ad is likely to stir such base passions.

This is a case of simply making something up without any facts at all.
**********************

See the full article Resources for dealing with Islamophobes for much more information about and links to responses to many claims, including critical reports on the Islamophobia Industry.  Here is a summary:

The Islamophobia Industry exists and is engaged in an anti-Muslim Crusade.  They have a manifesto for spreading their propaganda, and which states their goal of “destroying Islam — as a culture, a political ideology, and a religion.” They produce anti-Muslim films.  They are forming new organizations and coalitions of organizations at a dizzying speed, not only nationally, but also internationally.   They have formed an International Leadership Team “which will function as a mobile, proactive, reactive on-the-ground team developing and executing confidential action plans that strike at the heart of the global anti-freedom agenda.”

Sadly, the Islamophobic echo chamber has been aided by some in the Jewish and Christian clergy, and even by some of our elected representatives, particularly in the GOP.

These individuals and organizations consistently promote the false what everyone “knows” lies about Islam and Muslims (including distorting the meaning of Qur’anic verses, and distorting the meaning of Islamic terms such as taqiyya, jihad, sharia, Abrogation (Naskh) in the Qur’an, etc.

Islamophobes falsely claim to see “JIHAD” PLOTS everywhere, particularly where they don’t exist.   They, like Muslim extremists, don’t understand the true meaning of the term jihad.  The Islamophobes have uncovered countless examples of “shocking”, non-existent Muslim jihad plots.

Islamophobes generalize specific incidents to reflect on all Muslims or all of Islam.    Islamophobes consistently push demonstrably false memes such as:  – we are in danger from creeping Sharia, – the Muslim population is increasing at an alarming rate, – 80% of American Mosques are radicalized,  –  There have been 270 million victims of “jihad”  –  There have been 17,000+ “Islamic terrorist” attacks since 9/11    – Muslims in government are accused of being Muslim Brotherhood plants, stealth jihadists, and creeping Sharia proponents and should be MARGINALIZED or excluded.  Muslim and Arab organizations and individuals are connected to the infamous Muslim Brotherhood document or the unindicted co-conspirator label, or accused of not condemning Hamas.  When Islamophobes are caught in the act of making up or distorting claims they engage in devious methods to attempt to conceal the evidence.

The Islamophobia of these folks is very real, it is also strikingly similar to a previous generations’ anti-Semitism, and it has predictable consequences.

You would never know from listening to any of the members of the Islamophobia Industry that Muslims have defended  freedom of speech, participated in interfaith dialogue, defended freedom of faith against apostasy laws,  condemned blasphemy laws, condemned holocaust denial and anti-Semitism, promoted non-violent solutions to the many problems we face, called for protecting all houses of worship and condemned any attacks on churches or synagogues anywhere, condemned violent responses to numerous incidents including the response to the Innocence of Muslims film, spoken out against child marriage, are working to stop domestic violence in our community, etc.  Type condemn into the TAM search engine and 145 statements of condemnation come up in addition to the collections in our lengthy section Muslim voices against extremism terrorism and violence  Muslims speak out loudly and clearly condemning our own extremists, and their extremist statements and actions.  Type “lunatic fringe” into the TAM search engine for many such articles condemning particular extremists and extremist groups and activities.
You would never know that Muslims are decent, hardworking, productive citizens, making a positive contribution to this society.  Muslims haven’t just spoken out against abuses carried out anywhere in the world that dishonor Islam, but also worked doing positive things.

The claim that the Islamophobes are “truth-tellers” and “defenders of freedom” who actually “love Muslims” and have never engaged in “broadbrush demonization” or “advocated violence”, or that nothing that they say could have had anything to do with any act of violence are nonsense.  The claim that they are falsely being accused of Islamophobia for no reason other than their legitimate concerns about real issues and that in fact there is not even such a thing as Islamophobia, or their claim that the fact that there are fewer hate crimes against Muslims than against Jews or that some Muslims have fabricated such crimes “proves” that Islamophobia doesn’t exist,  or that the term Islamophobia was made up by Muslims in order to stifle their freedom of speech, or that anti-Muslim bigotry is “not Islamophobia but Islamorealism” are all nonsense.

The reason that this is so obvious to so many is that rational people can tell the difference between legitimate concerns and bigoted stereotypes.   There is a reason that many, even outside of the Muslim community see such demonization of Muslims as Islamophobic.  There is a reason that the ADL has stated that Brigitte Gabriel’s Act for America, Pamela Geller & Robert Spencer’s Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), David Yerushalmi’s Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE)  are “groups that promote an extreme anti-Muslim agenda”.  There is a reason that The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has designated SIOA as a hate group, and that these individuals are featured in the SPLC reports Jihad Against Islam and The Anti-Muslim Inner Circle. , and that the SPLC calls Pamela Geller “the anti-Muslim movement’s most visible and flamboyant figurehead. She’s relentlessly shrill and coarse in her broad-brush denunciations of Islam. There is a reason that these individuals and organizations are featured prominently in: — the Center for American Progress reports “Fear Inc.” on the Islamophobia network in America and Understanding Sharia Law: Conservatives skewed interpretation needs debunking. — the People for the American Way Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism.  — the NYCLU report Religious Freedom Under Attack:  The Rise of Anti-Mosque Activities in New York State.  — the Political Research Associates report Manufacturing the Muslim menace: Private firms, public servants, and the threat to rights and security.  — The ACLU report Nothing to Fear: Debunking the Mythical “Sharia Threat” to Our Judicial System — in The American Muslim TAM Who’s Who of the Anti-Muslim/Anti-Arab/Islamophobia Industry.   There is a reason that the SIOA’s trademark patent was denied by the U.S. government due to its anti-Muslim nature.   There is a reason that these individuals and organizations are featured in just about every legitimate report on Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred.

Click on the logo “Muslims denounce extremism and terrorism” on the front page of TAM for an extensive resource listing not only Muslim responses to extremism, but also resources for countering Islamophobia.

 

Sheila Musaji is the founding editor of The American Muslim (TAM).  Sheila received the Council on American-Islamic Relations 2007 Islamic Community Service Award for Journalism,  and the Loonwatch Anti-Loons of 2011: Profiles in Courage Award for her work in fighting Islamophobia.  Sheila was selected for inclusion in the 2012 edition of The Muslim 500: The World’s 500 Most Influential Muslims published since 2009 by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre in Amman, Jordan.    Biography  You can follow her on twitter @sheilamusaji ( https://twitter.com/SheilaMusaji )

Islamophobes Spencer and Greenfield Push Fabricated Mohammad Al-Arifi Fatwa Story

Mohammad Al-Arifi

Mohammad Al-Arifi

I want to hat tip Rookie who first alerted us to the story about a fabricated fatwa that allegedly gave Syrian rebels permission to engage in “intercourse marriage/gang rape,” the fabricated fatwa was attributed to a Saudi preacher by the name of Mohammad Al-Arifi.

Robert Spencer was pushing the false story on his JihadWatch and made a grudging update to the story quite some time after it was revealed to be fabricated in which he couldn’t help but take a dig at Shi’a Muslims.

Daniel Greenfield, premiere Genocide-inciter at David Horowitz’s FrontPageRag also published an article on the fabricated fatwa that attempts to paint it as real. Greenfield’s article has no update and in fact was headed with an incendiary picture from an older hoax being pushed by Islamophobes regarding a supposed “mass pedophilia wedding” in Gaza in 2009.

Greenfield titled this picture: “Hamas Muslim Child Brides“:

Hamas-Muslim-Child-Brides

I debunked this absurd hoax back in August of 2009 in the article, Anti-Muslim Blogosphere Runs Amuck: Forced to Eat Crow. Clearly, Greenfield wasn’t phased and continues to push this lie despite it being debunked  over three years ago.

AlterNet, which it self was fooled but had the decency to apologize for its mistake has the full story on the fabricated fatwa:

Exhibit A in How an Islamophobic Meme Can Spread Like Wildfire Across the Internet

January 2, 2013  |  Editor’s note: On January 2, AlterNet was one of several outlets that published what turned out to be an article based on a false report. We would like to apologize to our readers for the error.

On January 2nd, the story of a Saudi Sheikh issuing a fatwa that condoned ‘intercourse marriage’ or gang rape in Syria exploded over the internet.

According to various sources, Sheikh Mohammad Al-Arifi had stated that foreign fighters in Syria had the right to engage in short term marriages to satisfy their sexual desires and boost their determination to fight against the Assad regime. Syrian girls and women from age 14 upwards were considered fair game and apparently secured their own place in heaven if they participated in these ‘intercourse marriages’.

By the evening a simple Google search of the words, ‘Saudi Sheikh’ , Syrian, and ‘women’ brought up some 5 million references and at least 3 pages of links to articles spreading the news. Not surprisingly there was immediate online uproar too, though as one commentator put it, much of the discussion was about whether these arranged temporary marriages technically constituted ‘rape’. This in itself is worrying.

There was also skepticism from many quarters about the veracity of the report, particularly among savvy Mideast experts.  Rightly so. The story, much like the one a few months ago about Egyptian Islamist MPs proposing laws that permitted sex with a deceased spouse up to 6 hours after his/her death, turned out to be a gross lie.  Sheikh Al-Arifi has issued a denial via his Facebook page. Over the next few days, the various websites and media outlets that spread the story will no doubt issue their retractions. But the story also raises many questions.  For starters, where did it come from? AlterNet inadvertently picked it up from the overtly anti-Islamic Clarion Fund site. Others pointed to the Iranian regime backed Press TV as the primary source on December 31 2012.  But the earliest English language reporting comes on December 29 from an obscure YouTube news site called Eretz Zen, tagged as a YouTube channel by a “secular Syrian opposed to having [his] country turned into a Taliban-like state.”

What’s extraordinary and depressing is that a slew of websites picked up the story and ran with it, some claiming legitimacy because the other had posted it and clearly no one bothered to do some basic fact checking. Arguably this is just the nature of the net and minute by minute news updates. The story was too sensational to give up. But one would imagine that if a similar story emerged about a Christian cleric or a Rabbi, someone, somewhere would have paused before posting it. Sadly, in the case of stories about Muslim clerics or Islamists the same red flags don’t seem to apply.

Perhaps western journalists are so ignorant of Islam and the cultures in the Middle East that they are willing to believe anything. It’s nothing new — after all Western notions of the East were always immured in sexual decadence and the allure of harems. That was a trademark of the patronizing Orientalism of the past. Today we have a phobic version of Orientalism — expecting and only seeing and reporting the bad and the ugly.

Read the rest…

MondoWeiss: Pamela Geller’s 9/11 gathering features speaker calling for Islam to be ‘wiped out’

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer cozy up to Islamophobes who echo their own sentiments about wanting to see “Islam wiped off.” Spencer laughs at Hindu nationalist speaker at SION 9/11 event who compared Islam to bacteria, Muslims to rats and said “Islam will be wiped out.”

A few choice words by Dr. Babu Suseelan, a Hindu activist in Pennsylvania, provided one of these occasions.

“If we do not kill the bacteria,” the jowly Suseelan scolded the audience, “the bacteria will kill us.” Otherwise, he warned, “Muslims will breed like rats and they will be a majority.” Still, he concluded hopefully, “Islam can be stopped! And it can be wiped out.”

Spencer laughed, but Geller covered her face, as if witnessing the antics of a naughty child.

Pamela Geller’s 9/11 gathering features speaker calling for Islam to be ‘wiped out’

by Alex Kane (MondoWeiss)

On September 11, most Americans carried on with their day, perhaps pausing for a moment to reflect on the terrorist attacks in 2001. But not the crew of Islamophobes who have exploited the attacks as an opportunity to foment hatred of Muslims and profit off that hatred.

Leading anti-Muslim bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer held a September 11 gathering in New York City titled “D-Day in the Information Battle Space.” An initiative of what they call the International Freedom Defense Congress, the conference focused on “Islamic supremacist attempts to restrict the freedom of speech in the free world, and the smear campaigns against freedom fighters in newspapers and media institutions in the West,” in the words of Geller.

The gathering brought together speakers from anti-Muslim movements around the globe, including Tommy Robinson of the English Defense League, a violent far-right group. David Yerushalmi, the racist Orthodox Jewish lawyer who has lived in an illegal Israeli settlement, was a speaker as well. And David Storobin, the Brooklyn state senator who created some buzz after being photographed in an Israeli army uniform, spoke to Geller’s conference too.

It was the latest attempt by Geller and her cohort to forge cross-continental links to other anti-Muslim activists. The precursor to this event was a gathering in Stockholm, Sweden that likewise brought together a host of anti-Muslim activists from around the world. Before that, there was the founding of the Stop Islamization of Nations group, “designed to promote an umbrella network of counter-jihad groups across Europe and the US,” as The Guardian reported.

Brooklyn-based writer Aaron Labaree attended the New York September 11 gathering for Guernica Magazine. Labaree reports that Geller opened up the conference with a speech to attendees that called on “every single one” of them to “be a soldier” in the battle to “save the republic.”

By far the most disturbing aspect of Labaree’s report is this snippet:

A few choice words by Dr. Babu Suseelan, a Hindu activist in Pennsylvania, provided one of these occasions.

“If we do not kill the bacteria,” the jowly Suseelan scolded the audience, “the bacteria will kill us.” Otherwise, he warned, “Muslims will breed like rats and they will be a majority.” Still, he concluded hopefully, “Islam can be stopped! And it can be wiped out.”

Spencer laughed, but Geller covered her face, as if witnessing the antics of a naughty child.

Geller may have covered her face, perhaps in slight embarrassment that the activists she cavorts around with have no problem calling for the “wipe out” of an entire religion. But these are her allies.

But the fact that this rhetoric was inevitable may have caused the most high-profile speaker scheduled, John Bolton, to decide it was against his better interest to attend the conference. Bolton is a top neoconservative and a former official in the Bush administration, and is now advising Mitt Romney.

Bolton is an ally of Geller, as The Nation’s Wayne Barrett noted. “Bolton, who has campaigned repeatedly with Romney, is so close to Geller and Spencer that he wrote the foreword to their 2010 book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America, and has done several interviews with Geller, cozily discussing Middle East policy in couch videos,” reports Barrett. In the midst of a campaign season, though, Bolton appearing at a conference like this was bound to attract attention that the Romney campaign could do without. So even though Bolton was advertised as being a speaker at the conference, he never planned on showing.

I emailed an assistant to Bolton, Christine Samuelian of the American Enterprise Institute, before the gathering took place. Samuelian told me that the event was “not on his calendar…He has done it in the past and they may have assumed he was going to do it again this year but he did not commit to anything.”

But think again if you take this as a sign that the GOP is trying to ditch its anti-Muslim wing. The optics of a Romney adviser meeting with people who call for Islam to be “wiped out” would not be good, but the larger alliance is still there. As Labaree explains:

National politicians generally don’t get photographed with anyone who talks like Geller or Spencer, but they are happy to be associated with them at just one level of remove. Last weekend, the Family Research Council held its annual conference in Washington, D.C. The FRC’s Executive Vice President, retired General Jerry Boykin, has gained notoriety for his paranoid rants against Islam, which he has called “the religion of Satan.” The FRC conference’s featured speaker this year was Paul Ryan. And the Ground Zero Mosque affair of 2010 drew plenty of politicians of national stature, including Newt Gingrich and Rep. Peter King, of New York, who made opposition to the “mosque” his signature issue.

These politicians take SION’s position because it’s popular. Most Americans don’t get high on outrage the way Geller and Spencer do, but many are receptive to their ideas about Islam. A recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution found that almost half of Americans surveyed believe the values of Islam are incompatible with American values; the same percentage would be uncomfortable with a mosque being built in their neighborhood. This is theoretical, of course. Most people don’t have a mosque in their neighborhood: as of 2011, Muslims made up less than 1 percent of the U.S. population (Jews account for 1.6 percent, Mormons 1.9 percent, atheists and agnostics 15 percent). So far, the struggle in which SION attendees are supposed to be soldiers is a fantasy. But if Israel and Iran go to war, if there’s a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil—counter-jihadists and their allies will likely see their star rise. Meanwhile, Geller instructed the troops assembled to keep on blogging.

Wingnut Islamophobes Create Another Hoax Story: Muslims Rape Horse

The sick servile minds of the Islamophobes know no depths of depravity that they aren’t willing to revel in; EDL Review takes them to task for circulating lies in the Islamophobic looniverse.:

Muslim Horse Rape Story EXPOSED

(EDL Review)

Islamophobic sites like IslamVersusEuropeBaredNakedIslam and Vivienco, have been posting and regurgitating a story claiming that a 53-year-old ‘Muslim’ inhabitant of El Ejido abused, and raped a female horse (click on the names for their articles). But the story has been manipulated and has been a petty attempt to demonise Muslims.

First of all, it’s extremely strange that these sites have provided no or little source or reference to the story they are mentioning. Secondly, the author fails to give the name of the rapist, and only gives the initials ‘M.A’. Why? Is it so we don’t find out that this incident never even happened? Thirdly, earlier news reports (like this) only say the man was ‘African’. There was no mention of his faith.

A real-looking picture of a dead horse has been added into the manipulating articles, giving the impression it’s the same horse that was ‘raped’. As you can see, BaredNakedIslam even claim it is.

But this picture isn’t even of the incident! It’s a four-year-old picture that has been used previously in a Spanish news article titled ‘Wild horses cause three accidents in recent days Carnota’ (here), explaining how some Spanish workers were injured when crashing into horses on a road!

Clearly, these websites have been manipulating people by twisting things for their biased agenda. Only the gullible have been believing them without checking their accuracy, like the English Defence League (EDL) Surrey Division.

Note: We have exposed sites such as Vivienco before when they circulated a similar duck rape article and blamed it on a Muslim. The story was alsomanipulated. Read about it below.

Further reading:

  1. Islamophobic Duck Rape Stories EXPOSED

Eric Allen Bell: JihadWatch Zombie Still Obsessed with Obliterating Mecca

The increasingly unstable Eric Allen Bell (aka Eric Edborg) isn’t backing down from his calls to destroy Mecca. His genocidal predilections are endless. Last week I covered his cutesy attempt at fanning the flames of his Islamophobic followers fanatical anti-Muslim hate.

Now Bell is at it again, the chicken hawk wants the US military to hover over the Ka’ba and remove it.

Bell, having taken notice of the fact that his deluded hate-mongering is well known, gives his followers an empty warning, telling them to be careful of what hate they say because evil Obama-Mooslim-Brotherhood-Hamas-AlQaeda-linked-CAIR is watching:

Clearly Bell doesn’t know the meaning of “contradiction.”

As hollow a disclaimer as you will ever read, Bell who is extra-vigilante to ban those who oppose his hate goes ahead and leaves comments such as these up from Kim Bruce:

or James Garner:

You can check the thread out yourself and see all the other calls for nuking and killing, it would take a long time for us to load all of the screenshots.

Amusing Islamophobia Blog Wars: Logan’s Warning vs. Brigitte Gabriel

Brigitte Gabriel

by Garibaldi

Time for a history lesson on the anti-Muslim Islamophobia blog wars.

It has been a while since we reported on “intra-Counter Jihad blog wars,” which are really nothing more than pitiful, though amusing, little soap operas. Our first exposition of the phenomenon occurred several years ago when Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs repudiated Ned May of Gates of Vienna, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer in a very public way, for their associations with neo-Fascists and White Supremacists. In fact, there used to be a whole blog about it, Gates of Vienna vs.the World vs. LGF.

The invective and mudslinging got really nasty, but eventually Charles Johnson utterly abandoned the hate machine for greener, more sane pastures. Ever since that time Johnson has been a stalwart anti-bigot and has continuously exposed Spencer, Geller and other leading lights of the trans-Atlantic Islamophobia Movement.

There were also extremely amusing blog wars involving Spencer, Geller and Debbie Schlussel. Spencer at one time termed Schlussel a “freedom fighter” on par with his friend Pamela Geller. However, when Schlussel went after Geller, calling her a “charlatan” and “pseudo-warrior,” Spencer magically deleted any reference to Schlussel as a “freedom fighter.” Schlussel has also gone on the hunt against Walid Shoebat, Steven Emerson and Brigitte Gabriel, calling them “frauds” and “phonies” of the worst kind. We were happy to agree.

We also broke out the popcorn when bigot Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer started viciously sniping at one another. Bostom called out Spencer as a “plagiarist,” and “swine.”

It might be too early to call it the end but it looks like ex-booze buddies Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer are at each others throats. Bostom is accusing Spencer of plagiarism, and Spencer is replying that he is “miffed” by the accusation.

The sorry fact is that both of them plagiarize from Orientalists who have made the same arguments and presented the same research centuries ago.

The intra-fighting amongst the anti-Muslim Movement continues, perhaps a sign that this unstable movement is fracturing and will hopefully disintegrate under the weight of their own hate. The newest manifestation is the anti-Muslim website Logan’s Warning going after ACT! for America‘s Brigitte Gabriel, in a post titled, ACT!’s Brigitte Gabriel, $elling America a Bridge to Nowhere! Now that is a title that we can agree with! Whodathunkit, the truth from Islamophobes!

In something you don’t hear everyday, Christopher Logan, the “brains” behind “Logan’s Warning” criticizes Brigitte Gabriel for being too “moderate.” Really, according to Logan, Gabriel is too “moderate.” That’s like saying David Duke is a “moderate” anti-Semite.

Logan writes,

Well unfortunately the Queen of False Hope, Brigitte Gabriel, is back to doing her thing. Spreading false hope and censoring those who call her on her “moderate” Muslims are coming to the rescue nonsense.

Isn’t Brigitte the same bigot who said multiple times, “there is no moderate Muslim”? Isn’t she the same person who argued that a Muslim who practices or believes in the five pillars is a radical?

“a practising Muslim who goes to mosque every Friday, prays five times a day, and who believes that the Koran is the word of God, and who believes that Mohammed is the perfect man and (four inaudible words) is a radical Muslim.”–Brigitte Gabriel, Australian News

Logan goes on,

apparently the queen’s ego is too big, and or the money coming in from telling people what they want to hear is just too good to give up. Either way, her message of “moderates” coming the rescue is detrimental to America.

Logan also wants to point out,

I remember when I first took on this issue, there were plenty of Brits who did not want to lay the blame on Islam itself. They also were saying “radical Islam”. How did that work out?

Logan, don’t worry, in her heart of hearts Brigitte also doesn’t differentiate between something called “radical Islam” and “Islam.”

Logan continues to pile on,

Gabriel reminds me of a politician who will say anything to just to get through the moment…We are not going to win this war with your message. It is the equivalent of going to the doctor and being told you have a life threatening disease, but the problem will end up resolving itself…How much more time should be wasted in promoting that notion [moderate Islam]? How much longer until Gabriel, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, and Brooke Goldstein admit they need to change course? Five years, 10, 20?…Speaking of debate Brigitte. Instead of sending your two henchman or the naive and ignorant Chris Slick here, why don’t you come out of the shadows and debate me on this? Explain how Islam will reform. If you are being honest with America you will be able to back up your argument, right? (Emphasis mine)

This has to be one of the strangest and silliest debates in history. Bigots arguing amongst one another about who is more “moderate” in bashing Islam and Muslims. What Logan is pointing out however is Gabriel’s inconsistent and contradictory statements and positions, a common phenomenon with hatemongers. One we noted in a previous article on Gabriel,

So Brigitte, what is it? Are there any moderates or not? Brigitte seems to be telling us that the only acceptable Muslims are the ones who don’t practice Islam altogether? Or perhaps, she’s even implying that the only good Muslim is an ex-Muslim?

Logan should really be coming out and saying, why not be honest Brigitte and just admit, as you have a million times in the past that you hate Islam and want to see it destroyed. Either take back your bigoted statements that you believe “Arabs have no soul,” that there is no “moderate” Islam or “moderate” practicing Muslim or reaffirm those positions.

What I find as interesting as Logan’s blogpost slamming Gabriel are the comments. Take for instance Sarah Elkins comment, she thinks Arabs are no good unless they convert to Christianity,

Spoken like a true Brigitte Gabriel inspired Judeo-Christian Civilizational Crusader. Who can forget Brigitte’s “Arabs have no soul” comment,

“The difference, my friends, between Israel and the Arab world is the difference between civilization and barbarism. It’s the difference between good and evil [applause]…. this is what we’re witnessing in the Arabic world, They have no SOUL !, they are dead set on killing and destruction. And in the name of something they call “Allah” which is very different from the God we believe….[applause] because our God is the God of love.”–Brigitte Gabriel, CPAC

A commenter by the handle “Christ possession” rails, accusing some Islamophobes of slowing down the fight against the “beast” of “Islam,” and impeding the fight to stop “mosques” from being built and “sharia law” from replacing the Constitution.

Abdul Ameer posts about the “counter-Jihad” strategy and the usefulness of using “merry Muslims” like Zuhdi Jasser to stave off accusations that they are bigoted,

“eib” wants to focus on fighting Prophet Muhammad. Maybe he missed the memo, but Muhammad passed away over 1400 years ago,

Then we have “Brit is exile” who goes on about the Crusades, implying there needs to be a return to them,

These people are some of the most disturbingly deluded individuals of our time, and expose not only their bigotry but their own dissimulation and attack on basic freedoms and liberties. It is no surprise that with all these frankly ignorant and expansive egos competing that they would turn on each other. I say pass the popcorn and let me watch.

TheReligionOfPeace.com: Working to Streamline the American Empire’s “War on Terror”

The_Religion_of_Peace.com

by Garibaldi

Before Loonwatch launched in 2009 the web was inundated with a plethora of anti-Muslim Islamophobes, who for a full 8 years (since 9/11) organized and propagated their narratives on Islam/Muslims largely unopposed (notable exceptions). A cornerstone narrative that was developed and used by the Islamophobia Movement during this time was the myth that “All Terrorists are Muslim.” This narrative had wide circulation until it was debunked by Danios.

The fallback arguments that Islamophobes have since tried to amplify are two: 1. even if all terrorists aren’t Muslims, the overwhelming majority of terrorists are, and 2. most terrorist attacks worldwide are committed by Muslims, hence, in a further leap of logic, Islam is to blame. This argument conflates the tactic of terrorism with the religion of Islam, a claim whose proponents don’t even consider Islam a religion but rather a “political ideology.” More on this later.

TheReligionOfPeace.Com and the Faulty “Islamic Terrorism Ticker”:

If you visit JihadWatch, AtlasShrugs or any of the too numerous to count anti-Muslim hate sites and blogs, you are likely to find on the sidebar a hyperlinked image claiming that “Islamic Terrorists have carried out more than _____ Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11.” The image was created by the anti-Islam hate site, The Religion of Peace (TROP), associated with Islamophobe Daniel Greenfield, aka “SultanKnish,” who you will recall earns a pretty penny from the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

(as of July 7,2012)

The clear visual intent of this “Islamic terrorism ticker” is to provoke an emotive fear and anxiety of a global, monolithic, totalitarian Islam (read: Muslims), that is waging terror everywhere through thousands upon thousands of unmitigated and random attacks. On TROP the “terror ticker” serves as ammunition for the site’s stated missionary proposition of portraying “Islam” as “the world’s worst religion.” It also aids in the attempt to tie terrorism to Islam.

Even a cursory glance at TROP’s list of so-called “Islamic terrorist attacks” reveals it to be nothing more than a deeply biased, propagandistic spin-job that conflates:  real terrorist attacks, (semi)religious/culturally motivated crimes, attacks on military personnel and attacks by secular groups with no ideological basis in Islam — all in theaters of occupation, civil war and separatist conflict.

Sheila Musaji comments on this aspect of TROP’s list, writing,

This site lists acts committed around the world – some in wars, some having nothing to do with Islam, but to do with nationalist or political struggles, some in civil wars. No links are given. No sources for any of this just a list of supposed attacks carried out by “Islamic terrorists”.

Musaji’s complaint about their lack of links or citations to attacks holds true, however, one can generally glean where they grab their information. Some of it is likely from verifiable news sources while other sources are Right-Wing Christian/Zionist sites and news aggregators such as World Net Daily, BosNewsLife and Arutz Sheva.

A sampling of the entries on TROP’s “terrorism attack ticker” list  is quite revealing. One of their most recent entries is an attack near Turbat, Pakistan. This is how TROP spins this nationalist/separatist attack:


According to most reports Balochistani nationalist separatists are suspected (via. CNN),

Attackers on motorcycles killed 18 Pakistani day laborers traveling through Pakistan’s Balochistan province on their way to Iran on Friday, according to Home Secretary Naseebullah Khan Bazai.

No one has claimed responsibility for the attacks, but Bazai said authorities suspect Baloch insurgents who have been fighting Pakistan’s government over economic, political and human rights issues.

According to Bazai, the day laborers from Punjab and Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa provinces were heading to Iran to seek work when four assailants on two motorcycles drew close and opened fire, killing 18 and injuring two.

The incident happened about 74 miles (120 kilometers) from Turbat, CNN affiliate GEO TV reported.

Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf’s office condemned the attack, saying in a statement that “the cowardly act will not weaken the resolve of the government and people to defeat the forces of evil.”

These facts are no hindrance for TROP’s propagandistic methodology, they likewise file this attack under “Islamic terrorist attack.”

Non-religious crime:


Criminal gangs as well as a low scale insurgency operate in Dagestan. No group has claimed responsibility for gunning down the cop. Interestingly enough if one searches Google for “off-duty cop gunned down,” one will notice many findings of such incidences occurring recently in the USA. Should such killings likewise be termed “American Terrorism,” or since the majority of Americans identify as Christians, “Christian Terrorism?”

Attack on Foreign Occupiers:


British soldiers who are part of a coalition force in Afghanistan are not civilians, therefore this attack is not one that falls under so-called “Islamic terrorism.” Terrorism in most definitions refers, in one way or another, to the targeted killing of civilians in the furtherance of a political cause.

Suspected non-religious motivated crime:


TROP seems to have taken this report from BosNewsLife, which according to its About page is a Christian news agency. News reports of this incident do not mention the religion of the two individuals who were killed. They are described as two musicians and brothers, and most reports say a “religious” motive is not suspected. Again, this does not fit the paradigm of so-called “Islamic terrorism.”

Tribal/Cultural crime:


A sad and despicable murder, but definitely not related to Islam or terrorism. TROP’s attempted spin here is to conflate Islam with the so-called cultural practice of “honor killing,” which exists in various cultures around the world.

Nationalist/Secular Attack:

The BLA are nationalists yet TROP labels them “Islamic Terrorists.”

TROP once again conflates separatist groups who have specific nationalist aspirations with so-called “Islamic terrorism.” The BLA (Balochistan Liberation Army) claimed responsibility for the attack,

QUETTA: The Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) has claimed responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on a passenger train, warning people to refrain from traveling on the Pakistan Railways coaches as “such attacks will continue until the independence of Balochistan.”

According to Meerak Baloch, a spokesman for the BLA, the portion of the train which was attacked actually carried Pakistan personnel of the Pakistan army.

“We have warned all people, including the Balochs, Sindhis and Pashtuns, to stop collaboration with the Pakistani army or traveling on Pakistani trains,” said the spokesman who called the media from an undisclosed location. The spokesman said such attacks on the Pakistani army would continue in the future as well.

Domestic violence:


A very sad story, related more to patriarchy and domestic violence than “Islamic Terrorism.” It also should be pointed out that instances of husbands beating or forcing their wives to vote the way they want is not limited to Muslim countries.

Honor killing:


Once again, a sad and despicable murder, but definitely not related to Islam or terrorism. TROP’s attempted spin here is to conflate Islam with the so-called cultural practice of “honor killing,” which exists in various cultures around the world.

Reprisal attack, inter-ethnic violence:


Myanmar is home to the displaced Muslim Rohingya peoples, a group that is considered one of the most oppressed in the world. The country is seeing some of its worst inter-ethnic violence in quite some time with the beleaguered Muslim minority facing the brunt of the violence. These attacks are better categorized under sectarian and reprisal violence, not “Islamic terrorism.”

Honor Killing:


Also an unbelievably sad and despicable triple murder, no doubt, but definitely not related to Islam or terrorism. TROP’s attempted spin here is to conflate Islam with the so-called cultural practice of “honor killing,” which exists in various cultures around the world.

Attack on Foreign Occupiers:


Once again, NATO soldiers are not civilians, this does not fall under the general understanding of “terrorism,” let alone the ephemeral concept of “Islamic terrorism.”

Separatist attack on soldiers:


TROP leaves out the fact that there has been a separatist insurgency in Southern Thailand since 2004. The majority of the population in the South are Muslim Malay who feel marginalized and discriminated against by the predominately Buddhist Thai government. This does not fit under the rubric of terrorism. Those targeted by separatist insurgents were Thai soldiers and not civilians (via. AP).

Police Col. Samneang Luejeangkam says the attackers hurled a grenade into a school in Yala province’s Krongpinang district on Saturday while soldiers were taking part in a daily briefing in the schoolyard.

 Soldiers guard state schools in the area because teachers are often targets of the separatists, who regard them as representatives of the government.

More than 5,000 people have been killed in Thailand’s three southernmost provinces since an Islamist insurgency flared in 2004. Muslim residents have long complained of being treated as second-class citizens in the predominantly Buddhist nation.

Honor-related Crime:


Another terrible honor based crime.TROP’s attempted spin here is to conflate Islam with the so-called cultural practice of “honor killing,” which exists in various cultures around the world.

Honor Killing:


Once again, a horrific and despicable double murder, but definitely not related to Islam or terrorism. TROP’s attempted spin here is to conflate Islam with the so-called cultural practice of “honor killing,” which exists in various cultures around the world.

Assault:


While certainly falling under “assault” and disregard for freedom of religion/expression this has nothing to do with “terrorism.”

Possible Honor Killing:

A horrendous triple murder, but again, definitely not related to Islam or terrorism. TROP’s attempted spin here is to conflate Islam with the so-called cultural practice of “honor killing,” which exists in various non-Muslim cultures around the world.

The above is just a rough sampling of “attacks” over a period of a month that TROP included as terrorist attacks but that would not fit most definitions of terrorism, let alone so-called “Islamic terrorism.”

TROP also reports many incidents of attacks as the work of Islamist/terrorist groups when no group has taken responsibility or when law enforcement is unsure of the culprit. They omit facts, decontextualize, leaving out the fact that most of these attacks are part of larger insurgencies against the state. They also just plain lie about some attacks.

The Correlation Between the US “War on Terror” and the Exponential Increase in Terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan:

It goes without saying that experts on terrorism, actually anyone involved in counter-terrorism does not rely on TROPs silly “Islamic terrorism ticker” in their listing of terrorist attacks. Most experts laugh off TROPs clear missionary attempt at maximizing “Islamic terrorism” by inflating the numbers with everything from nationalist attacks to so-called honor killings.

What TROP and other Islamophobic sites will also cover up is the obvious correlation between the US “War on Terror” and the exponential rise of terrorism in Muslim majority countries, specifically Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. These three countries account for more than roughly two-thirds of terrorist attacks over the past 7 years.

In Danios’ groundbreaking article, Most Victims of Islamic Terrorism are Muslim…And Why America is to Blame for it, he begins by pointing out that the threat of terrorism to Americans and Europeans is “very minimal.” The brunt of terrorist attacks around the world is absorbed by Muslims. One would think that this being the case Muslims would be at the forefront cheerleading the “War on Terror,” but they aren’t,

Muslims around the globe (including in Afghanistan and Iraq), overwhelmingly disapprove of the so-called War on Terror.  In fact, they hold very negative views of the United States (at least in regard its foreign policy), viewing “‘U.S. interference in the Arab world’ as the greatest obstacle to peace and stability in the Middle East.”  This, in spite of the majority holding very negative views towards Al-Qaeda and its tactics.

So why do Muslims hold such negatives views of US foreign policy and the “War on Terror” despite also holding overwhelmingly negative views towards AlQaeda and its tactics?

It’s because they know what is painfully obvious: it is U.S. military intervention in the region that is most responsible for creating the problem of terrorism.

Statistics and graphs illustrating the number of terrorist attacks pre-War on Terror and post-War on Terror highlight this point vividly.

Iraq:

In the year before the Iraq War (from 3/19/2002 to 3/19/2003), there were only 13 terrorist attacks and 14 terrorism-related deaths in Iraq.  In the year after the Iraq War (from 3/20/2003 to 3/20/2004), there were 225 terrorist attacks and 1,074 terrorism-related deaths.  In other words, the U.S. invasion of Iraq resulted in an over 1600% increase in terrorist attacks and an over 7500% increase in terrorism-related deaths in just one year.  

At the height of the Iraq War, there were 3,968 terrorist attacks, resulting in 9,497 deaths–which amounts to an over 30,000% increase in terrorist incidents and over 67,000% increase in terrorism-related deaths as compared to pre-war years.
Here is a graphical representation to help visualize the data from RDWTI:

Afghanistan:

Using the data from RDWTI, we find that in the year just prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, there were only three terrorist attacks in the country, resulting in eight fatalities.  By 2008, the number of terrorist attacks had jumped to 450 and the number of terrorism-related deaths to 1,228.  In other words, the U.S. War in Afghanistan resulted in a 15,000% increase in both terrorism related incidents and deaths. 

Here’s what it looks graphically:

Pakistan:

The U.S.-led War in Afghanistan has created a worsening terrorism problem for Pakistan as well.  There are many complex reasons for this spike in violence within Pakistan (which are beyond the scope of this article), but all are ultimately rooted in America’s War on Terror.  Using the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents, we find that there was an over 650% increase in terrorism-related fatalities in Pakistan as a result of America’s war (568 deaths in 2008 as compared to 73 in 2000).

Don’t expect these sobering facts to make it onto any discussion about terrorism, let alone onto the Islamophobia Movement’s “terrorism ticker.” In their reflexive dash to demonize Islam and Muslims the Islamophobes stand exposed as the real dissemblers; those who work day and night to cover up the American Empire’s creation of the Middle East and South Asia’s “terrorism” nightmare.

The Conflation of the Strategy of Terrorism with Religion and Ideology:

Why are the Islamophobes so intent on their quixotic attempt to paint Islam as a political ideology instead of a religion? One reason has to do with the unwillingness of the Islamophobia Movement to differentiate between the tactic of terrorism and ideology.

This conflation of the tactic of terrorism as an inherent manifestation of certain political ideologies has its roots in the turbulent political environment of the 1970′s, when terrorism was almost “commonly regarded” as Left-Wing.

“Terrorism and guerrilla warfare have a history dating back many centuries, quite possibly one that predates the advent of conventional warfare. The study of this history is not an academic exercise; however, a true understanding of the terrorist phenomenon is impossible without at least some knowledge of what has gone before. To give but two examples: during the 1970′s it was common to regard terrorism as mainly, if not exclusively, left wing and revolutionary because the leading terrorist groups at the time in Europe, Latin America, and parts of the Middle East, implemented the terminology of the far left.

This focus on one specific trend was based on a profound misjudgment. It assumed that terrorism was an ideology whereas in actual fact it was a strategy used by the extreme right and the far left, by radical nationalist and fanatical religious groups alike. Understanding the history of terrorism on a world wide basis would have obviated such a fatal misreading. In a similar way, suicide attacks have struck many observers in recent years as something totally new and unprecedented, though it is an ancient tactic. In fact terrorists attacks predating the twentieth century were almost all suicidal in nature because with daggers, short range pistols and unstable bombs, the attacker’s prospects of survival were less than brilliant.” (emphasis added) Laqueur, W. (Ed.). (2004). Voices of Terror.

Absent from most discussions regarding terrorism is the role of state sponsored terrorism, especially the United States involvement in giving both “material” and “direct support” to groups that they themselves have designated as “foreign terrorist” organizations. Whether it is the Mujahidin-e Khalq (MEK), or the less well known relationship between NATO and the AlQaeda affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), or the current quagmire in Syria where US made arms and ammunition are finding themselves in the hands of rebels, some of whose ideological foundations mirror AlQaeda.

What is evident, and not altogether unsurprising, is that superpowers are willing to do business with terrorists whenever it suits their needs, all the while lying in the face of their apathetic citizenry. Indeed, they can always rely on bigoted zealots such as those at TheReligionOfPeace.com to cheerlead the enterprise of empire.

Pamela Geller’s New Advert Campaign Against Phantom “Islamization” Uses Faulty “Islamic Terrorism Ticker”

Pamela Geller‘s new advertisement campaign relies on the faulty “Islamic Terrorism Ticker” which we easily debunked recently in the article, TheReligionOfPeace.Com: Working To Streamline the American Empire’s “War on Terror.”

(via. Islamophobia Watch)

Geller unveils new advert to combat ‘Islamization of America’

New York City train commuters may soon see new anti-Islam advertisements on the city’s Metro North line.

The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) created an ad campaign to raise awareness about Jihadist activities against Israel and the United States, highlighting the number of Islamist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001, and a growing number of deaths that have resulted.

“19,207 deadly Islamic attacks since 9/11/01 and counting,” the ad reads. “It’s not Islamophohia, it’s Islamorealism.”

The $15,000 campaign is a response to pro-Palestine ads. It will cover 75 station kiosks throughout the Metro North route for a four-week period.

“We wanted to bring some reality – because truth is a recognition of reality – we wanted to bring some truth to Metro North,” said AFDI executive director Pamela Geller. “People need to understand the implications of the Islamization of America,” she added.

Geller’s group is already in litigation with the New York City Metro Transit Authority after the rail system rejected a different series of ads on the grounds that they violated its advertising standards – a move Geller is framing in terms of the First Amendment.

Geller is awaiting approval of her latest ads, and said she will take legal action again if necessary. If the new ads meet with the New York rail system’s approval, she hopes to take her message nationwide – starting on San Francisco’s BART system.

Daily Caller, 17 July 2012

Update:  See “Pamela Geller & Robert Spencer announce new anti-Islam ad”, The American Muslim, 18 July 2012

Geller, Spencer, Schlussel, Muslims, and the TSA

Spencer and Ilk are at it again, this time it is the stealth jihad of Muslim TSA agents…

Geller, Spencer, Schlussel, Muslims, and the TSA

by Sheila Musaji (TheAmericanMuslim.org)
Pamela Geller goes farther and farther off the deep end every day.  Today she posted an article Close Down the TSA! on the American Thinker site.

Her current outrage was set off by an incident at JFK Airport.  A screener (who happened to be Muslim) did not notice that his metal detector was not plugged in, and due to that error, passengers had to be recalled to go through screening again, the terminal had to be shut down, and planes recalled.

This was certainly a major error and possibly a sign of an incompetent employee.  That this could happen should require an investigation and re-evaluation of procedures.

If the screener is incompetent, then he should be fired.  If screeners are not being properly investigated, trained, and supervised, then systems should be re-assessed to ensure that such a mistake won’t happen again.  If there is any evidence at all that this individual purposefully left the machine unplugged, then he should be arrested, tried, and if convicted given the maximum jail time possible.

There is never just one person at screening stations, especially at such a large airport, which means that none of the other TSA employees noticed this issue either.

Geller seems to have personal information about what happened.  She says

A Muslim TSA screener, Alija Abdul Majed, left his screener unplugged for hours. This was no accident. This was a dry run. Majed, said the Post, failed “to realize that alert lights never flashed once as streams of passengers filed through the dead detector.” Yeah, right.  We have devout Muslim screeners screening for devout Muslims? This defines insanity.

Debbie Schlussel, another member of the Islamophobia echo chamber also commented on this incident, saying

What’s more believable is that he knew exactly what was going on and that he probably deliberately unplugged it, himself. He probably also tipped off some jihadist buddies of his to go through Lane No. 1 in Terminal 7.  …  This was no accident or coincidence.

Geller and Schlussel have appointed themselves the judge and the jury, and due to their pathological hatred of Islam and Muslims found not only the TSA screener responsible for the incident guilty – but found all Muslims guilty.  Not surprising, since they see jihad plots everywhere, and are responsible for most of the what everyone “knows” false claims about Islam and Muslims that they use their echo chamber to magnify.

Since when has the purpose of TSA screening been to screen for “devout Muslims”?  Since when has simply being Muslim been a reason that you shouldn’t be trusted to work for the TSA, or that you are automatically to be considered not only suspect, but guilty of any crime?

None of this is surprising.  Back in 2010, Geller’s partner, Robert Spencer objected to a Muslim woman in a hijab working for the TSA, and Geller provided the photo of the woman for Spencers article claiming that the TSA worker’s scarf an “Islamic Supremacist dare”?.  Here is what I said about their claims at that time

Spencer says

Only greasy Islamophobes would object to a hijabbed, observant Muslim TSA worker, right? After all, to object would be to assume that all Muslims are jihad terrorists or jihad terrorist sympathizers, and that is the very definition of “Islamophobia,” now, isn’t it? We should be applauding the prospect of a devout Muslim who has dedicated her time to protecting Americans by working at the TSA, right?

Actually, yes, only greasy Islamophobes would object based solely on an individuals religion, just as only greasy anti-Semites would object to a TSA worker wearing a yarmulke.

He then talks about the possibilities for “jihadis” to “infiltrate the TSA” to “to place operatives in strategic positions”.  He sees this Muslim woman wearing a scarf

as a symbol of the TSA forcing “non-Muslim air passengers to place their safety in the hands of people who clearly hold the same belief-system as did those who made all these security procedures necessary in the first place.”

Actually, the terrorists responsible for 9/11 held a very different set of beliefs than most Muslims.  Unless Spencer has evidence about this particular Muslim woman then he is saying that all observant Muslims are actually dangerous criminals.  This is bigotry!  If Spencer does have evidence about this particular woman, then he needs to meet with his local FBI agent and turn that evidence over.

He then comes to this disgusting conclusion

A hijabbed TSA worker is the personification of a dare: Islamic supremacists are daring the TSA to question her about her belief-system, thereby acknowledging that that belief-system has something to do with terror and violence. The TSA almost certainly did not dare to do so: it is virtually inconceivable that the woman pictured, as well as other hijabbed TSA workers and airport personnel, were ever questioned in any attempt to determine how closely their view coincided with those of Osama bin Laden. To have done so would have been “Islamophobic,” and would have invited protests from the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

And so the TSA hires observant Muslims without making any effort at all to determine whether or not they are jihadist infiltrators.

Hiring any observant Muslim who wears a hijab is to give in to “Islamic supremacists”?  The hijab itself is “the personification of a dare” by “Islamic supremacists”.  The TSA doesn’t screen it’s workers?   The “TSA hires observant Muslims without making any effort at all to determine whether or not they are jihadist infiltrators.”?

That last claim really concerns me.  Muslims, like all other Americans, place our trust in agencies like the TSA to keep us safe.  If Spencer has evidence that they are not doing their job, then he should immediately take that evidence to the FBI.

It’s a shame that Spencer, Geller, and the other Islamophobes don’t work for TSA, then they might be fired for such hateful statements.

There is a reason that the ADL (A Jewish anti-defamation group) has said that Pamela Geller & Robert Spencer’s Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA) is a “group that promote an extreme anti-Muslim agenda”.   There is a reason that The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated SIOA as a hate group.  There is a reason that the key players in the Islamophobia industry are featured in the SPLC reports Jihad Against Islam and The Anti-Muslim Inner Circle.  There is a reason that they are featured prominently in the Center for American Progress “Fear Inc.” report on the Islamophobia network in America.  There is a reason that they are featured in the People for the American Way Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism.  There is a reason that Geller is featured in the NYCLU report Religious Freedom Under Attack:  The Rise of Anti-Mosque Activities in New York State.  There is a reason that they are featured in the Political Research Associates report Manufacturing the Muslim menace: Private firms, public servants, and the threat to rights and security.  There is a reason that the SIOA’s trademark patent was denied by the U.S. government due to its anti-Muslim nature.  There is a reason that these folks are featured in our TAM Who’s Who of the Anti-Muslim/Anti-Arab/Islamophobia Industry.  There is a reason that they are featured in just about every legitimate report on Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred.

Sheila Musaji: Robert Spencer Uses 4th of July to Spread Islamophobia

Robert Spencer is lost

Spencer‘s always on the prowl to demean Muslims and spread Islamophobia (h/t: Critical Dragon):

Robert Spencer uses 4th of July to spread Islamophobia

by Sheila Musaji (The American Muslim)

Robert Spencer cannot let any opportunity go by to find a way to make a negative statement about Islam and Muslims.  Today, he used the occasion of the celebration of OUR nation’s Independence Day, the 4th of July to find a way to target American Muslims rather than to simply express his patriotism.

In his article, he lists four freedoms that “we” must defend.  In his commentary on what “we” must defend against, he uses only examples that he thinks represent Muslim attitudes at variance with the Constitution, and most of the examples he gives are from other countries, and from ancient texts.  According to the worldview Spencer is promoting, Muslims are anti-Constitution, anti-American, and untrustworthy and disloyal citizens.  It is clear that the “we” he refers to does not include Muslims.  He doesn’t mention any other individuals or groups who might pose a threat to our Constitution.  He also doesn’t mention any positive contributions of Muslims toward defending the Constitution and our freedoms.

Spencer only gives three references to American Muslims, and those in his first point.  Omar Ahmed, the individual accused of making one of the statements denies that he ever made this statement.  The supposed quote from the Muslim Brotherhood memorandum is questionable at best (see Muslim Brotherhood Document of the Muslim or Islamophobic Lunatic Fringe?).  The quote attributed to Ibrahim Hooper is not only out of context, but can be variously interpreted (see A response to Daniel Pipes’ allegations).

Here are the 4 freedoms Spencer mentions:

— 1. Freedom of religion, and non-establishment of religion.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” — First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
— 2. Freedom of speech “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” — First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
— 3. Equality of rights before the law “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” — Declaration of Independence
— 4. Governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” — Declaration of Independence

I would agree with him on the importance of these freedoms and many more (for example,habeas corpusthe rule of lawcivil rightssurveillance and profiling of citizens, etc.) and agree that all Americans must in every generation defend these freedoms from those who would undermine them.  American Muslims have strongly defended those freedoms:

1.  Freedom of religion, and non-establishment of religion.  American Muslim Academics/Scholars/Imams/Professionals issued a statement upholding the Freedom of Faith and the Freedom to Change one’s Faith.  And, many Muslims have spoken out about this issue.  See Apostasy and Freedom of Faith in Islam which includes a collection of articles.

2.  Freedom of speech.  American and Canadian Muslims issued a Defense of Freedom of Speech.  This statement specifically states that We uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Both protect freedom of religion and speech, because both protections are fundamental to defending minorities from the whims of the majority.

3. Equality of rights before the law, and 4. Governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. See below.

Read the rest…