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…

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.

Daily Bruin: Jews and Muslims Unite Against Bigotry Instigated by David Horowitz Freedom Center Ad

David Horowitz

Fear Inc. did a great job in tracking the network that funds Islamophobia. David Horowitz is one recipient of Islamophobic largess. He spends the money by paying Robert Spencer of JihadWatch and Daniel Greenfield of Sultan Knish amongst other activities.

Horowitz is very interested in college campuses, he was the originator of “IslamoFascism Week,” an Islamophobic event that catered to all the usual hatemongers. Now it seems he is putting advertisements in college newspapers. The results of the ad campaign seem to have backfired as they have brought Muslims and non-Muslims closer together instead of driving them apart.

Letter to the editor: David Horowitz ad unites Jewish, Muslim communities

(Daily Bruin)

Friendship can be forged under the most unlikely circumstances. Therefore, we formally thank the David Horowitz Freedom Center for providing us with this opportunity to find common ground against a common problem.

On Oct. 13 , the David Horowitz Freedom Center published an ad in the Daily Bruin titled “Not All Fears Are Phobias,” wrongly identifying Islam as a perpetrator of terrorism worldwide. By submitting the ad to our campus newspaper, the DHFC sought to bring its politics of division and fear to our campus community. Instead, it became a rallying point between two populations with viewpoints that often conflict. J Street U at UCLA and the Muslim Student Association have joined in solidarity to demonstrate to campus that we must rise above messages that intend to tear us apart.

No, really. This wouldn’t have happened if you had not published this. David Horowitz, you are truly a peacemaker.

The ad presents one step in a campaign to isolate the American Muslim community, all but labeling the entire community a security threat. The David Horowitz Freedom Center attempts to legitimize a policy of exclusion and suspicion of American Muslims and galvanize a susceptible population against them.

The Horowitz ad has made students on campus feel uncomfortable, upset and unsafe. While Muslim students feel it attacks their personal identity, others see the ad as unrepresentative of their values. This ad creates an environment where a specific community feels unsure of whether it can express its identity without fear of backlash or condemnation. The university has an obligation to protect its students in this capacity, especially when UCLA is among the most diverse campuses in the United States.

The campus Muslim community expressed widespread dismay and unease over the message embedded in the ad. They were outraged at being implicated in the actions of extremists, a tiny percentage of the overall population. Many members of the MSA felt unsafe and wary of a campus that might have endorsed a blanket criminalization of a religion rather than attributing blame to the individuals who committed the crimes.

If the David Horowitz Freedom Center really wanted to combat extremism, it would be urging us to communicate and learn from our classmates instead of preaching a dogma of intolerance. In actuality, placing the ad encourages the spread of extremism, divides our community and leads to demonization of student populations.

How can an organization that is against anti-Semitism condone Islamophobia? We feel that anyone against the former yet allowing the latter is applying a double standard to our neighboring communities. From J Street U’s standpoint, the Jewish values that we have been brought up on will not allow us to condone the oppression of any society, for our community is not exclusive to this experience. Our religious and ethnic memory is stained with millennia of oppression, and we pity those who have not learned from it. Our community suffered greatly, and we will do whatever we can to make sure others do not have to.

The solidarity shown by non-Muslim students for fellow Muslim students has helped to mitigate the dismay experienced by the MSA and wider Muslim community. Several members of the Muslim community stated that they felt reassured by the display of shared sympathy and very much appreciated the verbal expressions of support. The MSA and J Street U at UCLA decided to take this opportunity to collaborate and show the campus that personal friendships and logical arguments always trump fear.

It’s not only about the Jewish and Muslim communities. No community on or off campus should be demonized or disrespected. Instead of fostering fear and rejection, it’s our duty to try to understand each other’s cultures or viewpoints. The great thing about UCLA is the diversity of its student community. It takes special courage to approach the “other,” but it is always worth the risk.

J Street U and the Muslim Student Association at UCLA envision a campus where we’re not afraid to share our experiences, our cultures and our identities. Everyone does not need to agree, but everyone should be allowed to present their own viewpoints. The kind of ad that propagates fear of the “other,” but doesn’t allow that “other” community to speak for itself, is not what we need on campus. We don’t want a campus where people are scared of each other and where students are discouraged from interacting with people whom they disagree with or see as different. With this collaboration, we have taken our first step toward realizing this vision. We invite the campus community to join us.

This message is a joint response from J Street U at UCLA and the Muslim Student Association, written in collaboration between Fowzia Sharmeen, Jared Schwalb and Gabriel Levine, a UCLA alumna, fourth-year student and third-year student, respectively.

Fjordman Back at Gates of Vienna whose Tipsters Include Caroline Glick

by Farha Khaled

Islamophobic blogs like Gates of Vienna, popular with white supremacists have Israeli American fans who have adopted a hard line pro Israel agenda. It also appears that Fjordman is back at Gates of Vienna. He was cited recently as a tipster alongside Caroline Glick, the senior editor at The Jerusalem Post.

A closer scrutiny of Gates of Vienna the white supremacist blog which published ‘Fjordman‘ until he went into hiding after the Norway massacre shows it is run by a couple living in Virginia, USA, one Baron Bodissey whose real name is Edward May popularly known as ‘Ned May‘ and his wife who edits the blog under the pseudonym ‘Dymphna.’ It claims to focus on the ‘Great Jihad’ in Europe, regularly publishing essays promoting white supremacism, calls for a Muslim Holocaust and is filled with vile anti Islam bigotry, lies and polemics dressed up as ‘counter jihadism’.  Anders Brievik has posted comments there. In the past too, discussions of exterminating the ‘Muslim’ problem caused waves as in ‘Thinking the Unthinkable‘ in which options to rid the world of Muslims were discussed.

Gates of Vienna has a pro Israel focus which Ned and Dymphna go to great pains to emphasise. A cynic may suspect there are ulterior motives at play here. The connection between Zionism and organized Islamophobia is clear and comes as no surprise now. Fear Inc. a six month study by the Centre for American Progress, details how an Islamophobia industry is being funded and peddled by a small minority of conservatives. What is popularly known as ‘Islamism’ has its Zionist counterpart, as explored in a recent LoonWatch series ‘Why Religious Zionism, Not Judaism, Is The Problem‘.

Indeed Dymphna regularly does the rounds at right wing Zionist websites posting comments moaning about their poverty. One such blog is the rabidly anti Palestinian and Islam hating blog ‘Sultan Knish‘ run by Daniel Greenfield an Israeli sabra living in New York, who is a fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Centre the same organisation that sponsors Jihad Watch.  Daniel is obsessed with a pathological hatred for Muslims and a delusion that the US military exists to carry out his fantasy of a war on Islam. Daniel’s postings regularly dehumanise Muslims, and are filled with anti Islam screeds which he fabricates on whim, not unlike Ned May.  He also has a Torah Parsha blog and this video shows him in a debate about New Media. In a common theme amongst neo cons, Daniel complains there is a plot to destroy the US military by Obama.  In one blog post ‘Winning the War on Terror‘ he suggests genocide:

‘We would have to be willing to kill millions, directly or indirectly, while maintaining an alliance that would defy Russia, China and the First World nations that would accuse us of genocide. The real name for this war might well turn out to be World War III. It would take a Churchill or a Roosevelt to launch something like that, and while the world would be radically different afterward, it might well turn out to be radioactively different too.’

Whilst Daniel’s crowd propagate that Muslims are out to destroy the USA, the truth is these very neo conservatives bankrupted the US economy by leading it into trillion dollar wars on fake premises and fabricated evidence. As Julian Borger reported in The Guardian, the evidence for the Iraq war was fabricated by the now defunct ‘The Office of Special Plans‘ affiliated with hard line Likudniks.

When the worlds media was questioning the role Robert Spencer and his crowd played in influencing the massacre, Daniel Greenfield, rushed to defend his buddies with  ‘Brievexploitation‘ a pathetic attempt to divert blame. A cursory glance at the comments underneath this post, dated 8/06/2011 shows Dymphna reminding Daniel how her ilk suffer for being philo-semitic:

‘The fledgling right wing of European politics, the only part of it that was NOT anti-Semitic, has been ripped from the body politic in Europe and thrown on the ash heap.’

After reminding him and his readers of the huge sacrifices made, she goes on to subtly beg:

‘Perhaps you could suggest to Mr. Horowitz that as part of discovering ABB’s networks, he could have that analysis done? Certainly if I had the money I’d get it asap.’

Far right Islamophobic activists have forged alliances of convenience with radical Zionists and regard Israel as an ally, not least because they see Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as a role model for how Muslims should be treated.  Hard line Zionists see it as an opportunity to lessen the growing Muslim presence and influence in the USA and Europe which they see as detrimental to a greater Israel. Stooges like Geert Wilders are funded in the hope they can halt Muslim immigration and influence. Marginalised as they are, some European nationalist groups are willing to shed their traditional Jew hatred in an attempt to find allies, but as often happens in marriages of convenience, it doesn’t take much for cracks to appear. Pamela Geller’s association with the EDL caused waves when Roberta Moore claimed they had Jew hating members and were not sufficiently pro Israel. In Europe, German newspaper Der Spiegel probed this alliance in ‘The Likud Connection‘ showing how some marginalized right wing populists are going the Geert Wilders way. This bizarre coupling has split the far right movement in Europe which has traditionally been anti-semitic.

Meanwhile, Ned May, an EDL activist, serves as director of International Free Press Society an American and Denmark based group whose members claim to fight threats to free speech from ‘forces within Islam’. IFPS’s board members include the familiar names Bat Ye’or, Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom and affiliates like Aish Ha Torah. Incidentally, one of the listed advisers for IFPS is Rachel Ehrenfeld an “expert on terrorism” and author of ‘Funding Evil’ in which she made allegations of terror funding against the now deceased Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz for which he sued.

Ned often mixes in a pro Israel and pro Jewish stance liberally peppering his polemics with quotes from the Talmud and expresses a desire (like Dymphna) to be in the pay of Mossad. In this he has help from fellow bloggers like his friend, a Jerusalem based Israeli American lawyer, one Carl Mordechai Sherer, who runs Israel Matzav as ‘Carl in Jerusalem‘. Charles Johnson banned Carl from Little Green Footballs where he was a heavy commenter for posting a link to Gates of Vienna with a curt ‘I will have nothing to do with people who promote fascist creeps‘. Stung by LGF’s criticism, a blog war followed, in which Ned May tries to salvage some dignity for his cesspool.

A particularly revealing blog post is where Carl can be seen giving Ned advice on the legality of declaring Jewish rights to Israel as an indigenous people, stating he fully supported a ‘greater Israel’ though the world won’t allow it. Ned  in turn laments a common nazi theme which he modifies to this convoluted logic:

‘Regardless of the merits of the case, I agree with Carl that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will never be applied to Jews — or to white Europeans, for that matter.

“Indigenous Peoples” are “brown” peoples, especially Muslims, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, and black Africans. Anything using the term that is passed by the UN will only be allowed to apply to those peoples, and never to Jews or Caucasians.’

Ned May must be unaware of the millions of Caucasian Muslims including Russians, American Muslims, British and other European converts. Carl, who did not see fit to tell his friend that most Israeli’s are non Caucasian Sefardi Jews was however, quick to hypocritically cry ‘nazi’ at white supremacist Occupy Wall St protesters.

Incidentally, Carl, who has lauded Fjordman’s postings at Gates of Vienna gushes at Israel Matzav:

‘For those who have never been to Gates of Vienna, go check it out. It’s some of the highest level intellectual material you will ever read on the Internet.’

How high is that ‘intellectual level’ ? Let us quote Ned verbatim where he explains the purpose of Gates of Vienna is to spread lies at a grassroots level, in short; telling a lie often enough makes one believe it. Not just to lie but to oversell it. In a blog titled ‘Overselling the Meme‘ he states:

‘This must be accomplished at a level well below that of the celebrities and famous pundits, because action on that battlefield invites a massive and well-funded counterattack by CAIR, ISNA, the OIC, etc.’

Using hyperbole and flowery nonsense, he spells out his mission in life:

As a propagandist, my task is to spread the meme and not to sweat the nuances. Nuances can be argued about and nailed down by scholars in the centuries after Islam — as a culture, a political ideology, and a religion — is totally destroyed. We don’t have the luxury for such finicky scholasticism right now.’

Perhaps the best known Israeli tipster for Gates of Vienna is The Jerusalem Post’s Caroline Glick an Israeli American known for her right wing views, and who serves as editor for the Israeli political satire website Latma TV. Caroline was cited approvingly in Breivik’s manifesto.  It appears that Fjordman is once more back at Gates of Vienna, for on 13th October 2011, the credits included :

‘Thanks to C. Cantoni, Caroline Glick, Fjordman, heroyalwhyness, JP, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.’

When Israel was forced to offer an apology for Latma TV releasing ‘We Con the World,’ a satire mocking the dead Gaza flotilla activists, the Huffingon Post’s Eileen Read wrote ‘The Jerusalem Post Should Fire Caroline Glick for Making a Racist Video in which she opined:

‘But this is lower than I’ve ever seen someone go who carries a management title at a journalism organization. I’m ashamed to say that Glick and I are both Columbia alums. Even if she hates people of another race or religion and is allowed by her editors to poke fun at them in a tasteless and blatantly racist way, she should be fired for making fun of the dead.’

This incident was not the first time Caroline Glick had received flak for her radical opinions. In the aftermath of the Norway massacre, the Jerusalem Post published editorials that had tried to link the tragedy to Europe’s immigration policies. Norwegians took offence at sentiments expressed by Glick amongst others and voiced their objections to Israeli diplomats as to how the tragedy was being exploited. Some weeks later, the Jerusalem Post’s Editor in Chief published ‘Apology to Norway‘ an editorial in which he expressed remorse:

‘As Senior Contributing Editor Caroline B. Glick suggested in her column last Friday, the fact that Breivik’s warped mind cited a group of conservative thinkers including herself as having influenced his thinking in no way reflects on them.

“As a rule, liberal democracies reject the resort to violence as a means of winning an argument. This is why, for liberal democracies, terrorism in all forms is absolutely unacceptable,” she wrote. “Whether or not one agrees with the ideological self-justifications of a terrorist, as a member of a liberal democratic society, one is expected to abhor his act of terrorism. Because by resorting to violence to achieve his aims, the terrorist is acting in a manner that fundamentally undermines the liberal democratic order.”

It later emerged that Breivik, a Christian radical, had posted on the Internet an extremely anti-Muslim manifesto that supported far-right nationalism and Zionism.’

He then moves on to vocalise the Jerusalem Post’s stance:

‘This is certainly not the kind of support Israel needs. It is the type of Islamophobia that is all too reminiscent of the Nazis’ attitude toward the Jews. Jews, Muslims and Christians in Israel and around the world should be standing together against such hate crimes.’

Caroline has also given explicit permission for Gates of Vienna to publish a Norwegian version of Norway’s Problem which Ned did after writing:

‘Under normal circumstances, Gates of Vienna does not publish in any languages other than English (in its American, British, Canadian, and Australian variants). However, we are making an exception for the following opinion piece by Caroline Glick.’

Setting the tone for this unique honour, Ned continues:

‘The result was the column below. Several Scandinavians requested that we publish a Norwegian translation, and with Ms. Glick’s permission it was kindly translated by Cecilie.’

Indeed! We have here one of Israel’s most ‘most important’ women and the Senior Contributing Editor of the Jerusalem Post giving permission to publish a translated version of her article at a hate site (that credits and links back to her) espousing views deemed repugnant by her editor-in-chief. One can recall the hue and cry when Octavia Nasr tweeted about a Hezbollah sheikh’s death that led to CNN firing her!

Gates of Vienna may be bottom feeders in the world of Islamophobia, but clearly their unsettling involvement with prominent hatemongers is more than just a cause for concern.

Farha Khaled is a columnist for the Arab News.  She can be followed on Twitter http://twitter.com/farhakhaled