Islamophobes discover ludicrous “hospital jihad” plot

A proposed Muslim surgical facility in a Chicago suburb elicited the usual fear and conspiracy theory mongering that is the m.o. of Islamophobes. The center’s proposal was rejected today by state boardfor reasons unrelated to the Islamophobes but this stands as another instance of the Islamophobia crowd fabricating headlines.

Sheila Musaji has the story:

Islamophobes discover ludicrous “hospital jihad” plot

Chicago Business reported that “Dr. Naser Rustom plans to open the first outpatient surgery center in Illinois that he says will follow Islamic law.  …  He proposes to establish a $5.5 million medical facility in southwest suburban Orland Park that would cater to Muslims, including space for prayer and ritual washing and partitions for enhanced patient privacy. … Patients of all religious and cultural backgrounds will be treated at the center, which will not be different from other surgery centers except “to the trained eye.”

Summary of the facts:  a Muslim doctor has applied for permits to open a hospital in an area of Chicago with a large Muslim population.  The hospital would be for the entire community, no matter what their religion, but would accommodate Muslim religious and cultural customs to make Muslim patients more comfortable.

The Islamophobes were on this right way.  Debbie Schlussel, for example, posted New SHARIAH/ISLAM-ONLY Medical Center to Open in Chicago.  Schlussel introduces an article about this planned hospital with this comment:  “More and more, America becomes Islamerica. And here’s yet another example. But this is only the symptom, not the problem: a growing Muslim population that has metastasized and is a ticking population timebomb–through immigration (legal and illegal) and birth rate. A Muslim doctor, who also owns a Chicago Middle East restaurant (where you should NOT eat, or you are financing shariah), is opening a shariah-compliant medical center. You can bet, by the way, that the government will not force the constructs of Obamacare down the throats of these Muslims, just Catholic-operated hospitals and the like. (On the other hand, I’ve repeatedly told you about the medical jihadists–how Islamic doctors treat non-Muslim patients, so maybe it’s better if Muslim doctors treat only other Muslims. Sadly, that ain’t how it works.)”

Schlussel is Jewish, and for an American Jew to find this proposed hospital to be some sinister Muslim plot is unbelievable.  But since she seems unable to even read the article to note that the hospital would be open to all, and not “Islam Only” as her title falsely claims, I suppose she might just be that ignorant.

Schussel was not the only Jewish Islamophobe to show this level of ignorance.  Bonni Benstock-Intall of Bare Naked Islam titled her “expose” COMING SOON TO CHICAGO: Islamic Female Genital Mutilation.  And, Daniel Pipes wrote Islamists in the Hospital Ward in which he says “A Muslim surgery center in Chicago: It was inevitable: not fitting in to normal medical facilities, Islamists would have their own. But who would imagine the trend starting in a Chicago suburb, Orland Park, where Dr. Naser Rustom, an internist, plans to build a $5.5 million surgical center?”  This issue of hospitals that cater to Muslim patients truly bothers the Islamophobes.  Pamela Geller & Creeping Sharia previously called Muslim hospitals “hospital jihad”.

This is an obvious attempt to create a story out of nothing.  The concept behind this hospital catering to Muslim patients is well-established in the Jewish community.

The Visiting Nurse Service of New York has an article online that states:

“We understand the importance of delivering culturally sensitive care and serving the unique needs of all of our patients. We know you and your loved ones live in New York but may be most comfortable with nurses and other professionals who are sensitive to each patient’s cultural needs, customs and religious background.  At VNSNY, we’ve tailored our comprehensive home health care and community-based services to New York City’s Jewish population—the largest Jewish community outside of Israel.

Our health professionals include nurses, therapists, home health aides, social workers, and translators who provide every type of care from mental health services to managing medications. They attend our La Bre Oot program, where they receive specialized training to recognize and understand the unique cultural needs and customs of their Jewish patients, particularly the laws and practices of Orthodox Jewish clients. Our staff members take those traditions into account when they care for you and your family. They are especially sensitive to:

Kosher dietary and nutritional practices and their relationship to medical conditions and continuing health
Laws of the Sabbath and holidays
Family dynamics in the care of the elderly and those with disabilities
Educating patients and families on medical conditions and treatments
In addition, VNSNY works closely with leading Jewish physicians, and we have nurses on-site at the major hospitals and medical centers that cater to the Jewish community, including Mt. Sinai, Beth Israel, NYU, Maimonides, and Lenox Hill. In addition, our relationships with the many community-based organizations that cater to New York’s Jewish population allow us to help our patients access the appropriate resources available in their neighborhoods.

An article To cater to the Orthodox community, back to basics reports that:

 

“Monmouth Medical Center, where more and more Orthodox Jewish patients from Lakewood are coming to give birth, is sensitive to cultural and religious needs. … To accommodate the growing Orthodox community in Long Branch, Deal and Lakewood, many physicians are opening offices nearby. “It’s a big part of what we do here,” said Dr. Dominick Lobraico where 35 percent of the practice’s births are to Orthodox parents.  The hospital operates a program to treat Orthodox patients and their families with sensitivity and educates its staff to do the same. … Because of a prohibition against the operation of mechanical devices on the Sabbath, Monmouth Medical Center has established a Sabbath entrance, which is a manual door, and a Sabbath stairwell to patient rooms so observant Jews do not have to use the elevator. … The Eisenberg Family Center offers a unit of private rooms for new mothers, with sofas in case a new father wants to stay the night. That unit also includes kosher kitchenettes and areas for prayer. Prayer shawls are located in a nearby bookcase.”

These Jewish Islamophobes continue to stir up the bigots, and as I wrote previously May Regret Stirring Up a Hornet’s Nest of Bigotry.  Their anti-Muslim prejudice is clouding their judgement about how closely anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, and all other forms of bigotry are linked.  Encouraging and condoning bigotry towards any minority ultimately can come to hurt all minorities.  Their ravings against Islam and Muslims are appealing to a certain segment of the population who need to have someone to blame and to look down on.  It is if she is taking a stick and sticking it into a hive of hornets and shaking it around and hoping they can control who those hornets sting.

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.

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.

Robert Spencer’s ex-ally Debbie Schlussel Exults in Lara Logan’s Suffering, Calls Muslims Animals

Robert Spencer’s old buddy Debbie Schlussel on Lara Logan. On his own hate site Spencer employs his usual goonish modus operandi whereby he related what happened to Lara Logan to a verse in the Quran. Is he sick or what?

Anyhow he conveniently looked over the fact that those who saved Logan were Muslim women and the Army of Egypt. One wonders if the cynical Robert Spencer will find it fit to link the Bible to rapes in the US military (hat tip: Alexandria):

“According to NPR, “In 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed.”

Debbie “getting-more-irrelevant-by-the-day” Schlussel is lashing out for attention once again. This time she is celebrating the suffering of CBS reporter Lara Logan who was surrounded by a “dangerous element” amongst celebrators at Tahrir Square.

Lara Logan suffered sexual assault and a brutal beating, she was saved by “20 women and a group of Egyptian soldiers” and is now back in the United States where she is recuperating. It is unfortunate that Schlussel is so extremely vile that she would take this incident to bash Lara and call all Muslims “animals” but it’s not surprising.

One wonders if Schlussel is human:

How Muslims Celebrate Victory: Egypt’s “Peaceful, Moderate, Democratic” Protesters

by Debbie Schlussel

As I’ve noted before, it bothers me not a lick when mainstream media reporters who keep telling us Muslims and Islam are peaceful get a taste of just how “peaceful” Muslims and Islam really are. In fact, it kinda warms my heart.  Still, it’s also a great reminder of just how “civilized” these “people” (or, as I like to call them in Arabic, “Bahai’im” [Animals]) are:

islamiccrescent.jpg

Alhamdillullah [Praise allah], Islam Fan Lara Logan Gets a Taste of Islam

And remember this is the person that Robert Spencer alongside Pamela Geller described as a “freedom fighter.”

Robert Spencer: Loonwatch, One-half of the Leftist-Mooslim Alliance

Robert Spencer with loon Pamela Geller

Robert Spencer with loon Pamela Geller

Loonwatchers, it seems the big bad blogger himself, Robert Spencer, is beginning to worry about our little blog over on Jihad Watch (hat tip: Mallorcaman). In a blog titled, Daily Kos Sides with Islamic Supremacists Who Want to Extinguish Free Speech and Oppress Women and Non-Muslims (how many stereotypes can you fit in a single title?), Spencer targets Daily Kos contributor Devon Moore who has written comments on our site previously and has linked to us on his site.

Spencer’s post is interesting both for what Spencer writes as well as the comments which end up proving the depths to which Spencer has sunk. I don’t know if Spencer is giddy at the mere fact that he received some mention on Daily Kos or if he is truly fuming in his traditional, up-tight and conspiratorial way that “stealth jihad” is being perpetuated under the guise of some dreaded and fanciful “leftist-Mooslim” alliance. There is probably an element of both in his paranoia, but as in his attempt to pick a fight with Bassiouni it looks as though it is more of the conspiracy card.

The title itself is quite perplexing and makes bold the fact that Spencer has a penchant not only for melodrama (to stroke his ego) but also misinformation. Whenever anyone disagrees with Spencer or disputes his claims (and the list of people is ever increasing) he takes it personally, and reacts with violently worded blog posts that sling innuendo to-and-fro.

The question is: why is it that Spencer can dish out the criticism but is unable to take it? Is it the hallmark of an objective scholar to think that he or she is above any criticism? That everyone outside of the choir he sings to is wrong and part of some Leftist-Mooslim alliance? The ALA is wrong? Muslim scholar and International Law expert Cherif Bassiouni is wrong? Chicago activist Ahmed Rehab is wrong? Islamic scholar Carl Ernst is wrong? Islamic scholar John Esposito is wrong? Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is wrong? Religious scholar Karen Armstrong is wrong? Islamic scholar Khaleel Mohammed is wrong? Academic historian Ivan Jablonka is wrong? Journalist and neo-Con Stephen Shwartz is wrong? Conservative ex-boyfriend of Ann Coulter Dinesh D’Souza is wrong? Spencer’s former friend Charles Johnson is wrong? Blogger and columnist for Commentary Magazine Kejda Gjermani is wrong? The list goes on and on.

Of course, the plain truth is that all of these diverse individuals are neither wrong or incorrect but they are on to something: Spencer is not an objective scholar, he is not in fact very scholarly, in fact he traffics in some of the oldest and well abused stereotypes about Islam and Muslims out there, while all at the same time putting up a front that he is objective and part of the elite vanguard safe-guarding Western values such as freedom of religion and free speech.

This methodology of Spencer is belied by the fact that he takes umbrage at other people expressing their right to free speech which is exactly what Devon Moore did. He stated his opinion (one shared by many), yet according to Spencer what he did was the equivalent to teaming up with “Islamic Supremacists who want to extinguish free speech and oppress women and non-Muslims.” Say what?

Spencer really should go through our website, especially the articles relating to him. He will see that all we do is report the facts — his instances of Islamophobia and anti-Muslimism. Like when he joined the genocidal Facebook group which called for the reconquista of modern day Turkey and its transformation through ethnic cleansing of the whole peninsula; driving out its Muslim Turkish inhabitants and replacing them with Christians.

Malkin's Book

Malkin's Book

We don’t have time to go through a detailed list of the odious friends and individuals of a very anti-Muslim bent that Spencer calls allies, but they include: Michelle Malkin of In Defense of Internment fame, Geert Wilders a neo-Fascist European politician (though Spencer thinks he is not a “genuine” neo-fascist) who wants to ban the Qur’an, Muslim immigration and deny religious freedom to Muslims, Serge Trifkovic one of the leaders of the Bosnian Serbs during the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims, the Gates of Vienna website which advocates an end to Muslim immigration and the dominance of the original indigenous White Europeans, and more. One day we will list all his buddies but just this small oeuvre should be a chilling reminder of who Spencer is: a biased, self proclaimed scholar who does not view Islam from a dispassionate and objective lens.

Spencer’s blog post also reveals a bit more of the strange world he inhabits. He writes,  first quoting Devon Moore,

The anti-Muslims cover a wide spectrum though most can be found slithering in the Right-Wing. They range from academics such as Daniel Pipes, self-declared scholars like Robert Spencer and his JihadWatch, to open racists such as Debbie Schlussel, Pamela Geller and the blog Gates of Vienna.

“Open racists”? When the Left can’t argue (which is most of the time), they smear and lie. Schlussel and Geller are freedom fighters, warriors for human rights. Only to a Leftist would that be “racist.” They are not open racists or closet racists or any kind of racists.

Moore made the incontrovertible point that Pamela Geller and Debbie Schlussel are racists, he could have also added loony extremists. Yet, according to Spencer, Debbie Schlussel and Pamela Geller are “freedom fighters” and “warriors for human rights.”

Pamela Geller, you may recall is one of the bloggers who initiated and pushed (and still is pushing) the Birther conspiracy about Barack Obama. That Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and that he is a secret Muslim subverting America through Jihad. She also “uncovered” somehow that Barack Obama was the illegitimate son of Malcolm X. This is what her WikiAnswer page has to say about her,

Pam Geller’s blog has earned her a spot in the Conservative limelight. She frequently attacks Barack Obama, pushing and originating conspiracy theories that include: Obama is a secret Muslim, Obama is not American, Obama is the illegitimate son of Malcolm X, Obama is an anti-Semite. She writes in an August 1st blog about Obama’s travel to Pakistan in the 80’s, “I think he went for the drugs and came back with jihad.”

Debbie Schlussel

Debbie Schlussel

The other “freedom fighter” for Spencer is that delightful, if deranged blogger known as Debbie Schlussel. She gives us so much fodder that there should be a website devoted exclusively to her. Debbie Schlussel was the one who proclaimed after the Virginia Tech Massacre that the shooter was a Muslim, and when early reports came out that he was Asian, she wrote that “Pakis are considered Asian” and that the attack could have been “part of a co-ordinated terrorist plot by Pakistanis.” Even when it was revealed that the shooter was a Korean she persisted with her story that he could have been a secret Muslim. Not too long ago she was on the record making a genocidal joke about Palestinians, while writing about clashes between rival Palestinian forces which left six dead Schlussel stated, “As we say in lawyer jokes, that’s a start. Six down, a few million to go.”

Now with friends like those can we really take Robert Spencer seriously? Especially when he gives these crazies ringing endorsements as “freedom fighters” and “warriors for human rights.” It seems even some of his followers are a little queasy about his endorsement, one commenter on JihadWatch, JoeChill writes,

Sorry, Mr. Spencer–you make some excellent points, but Debbie Schlussel is a highly disturbed woman. Granted, the idiots at Kos don’t like her, but even a broken clock, etc.

Schlussel initially suggested that the VA Tech shooter was a Muslim (he wasn’t). She claims that one of the 9/11 victims, Jon Schlissel, was a “cousin” of hers (based on the idea that someone with a similar name had the same ancestor a few centuries ago) and she repeatedly attacks those she disagrees with by making unsubstantiated claims, or, more often, lies.

I agree with you that Islamic jihadists and those who follow Sharia law are little more than brutal thugs who are trying to remake the world into their own twisted image. But Schlussel’s pretty twisted herself, even though she opposes them. If conservative writers are guardians of the Constitution, Schlussel is a rabid German Shepherd. By espousing her, you weaken your otherwise excellent column.

Posted by: JoeChill [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 25, 2009 4:35 PM

It would be wise for Robert Spencer to take this advice from JoeChill, he should retract his endorsement of the racist Debbie Schlussel, apologize for it, condemn her and distance himself from her. Then he should do the same with Pamela Geller. That way he might be on the road to rehabilitating his image as an apologist for fascism and an endorser of racists, instead of boohooing about a fictitious “Leftist-Mooslim” alliance.

Anti-Muslim Blogoshpere Runs Amuck: Forced to Eat Crow

gaza_wedding

Islamophobes purposefully mistook these girls as child brides

The Loon world was whipped into a frenzy based on, as usual, the reinforcing winds of ignorance and hate. In what was meant to be an unremarkable story, Tim Marshall a reporter for Sky News blogged on a mass wedding celebration in the Gaza Strip officiated by  Hamas. Marshall reports in his excellent blog Islamophobia. Ignorance or Propaganda?,

The party is for 450 grooms, the brides are elsewhere, some among the 5,000 or so guests. It’s the way things are done here, Personally I’m for the mixing of the sexes, but I’m not about to argue, I’m outnumbered.

Up on the stage there’s music and dancing. Everyone’s having a good time, even me, although the Hamas robocops are making me a little nervous. Sure Hamas have cold blooded killers among them, sure they support the murder of children in Israel, sure they are cracking down on women’s rights, but many of their supporters are just ordinary people. And they need a break…Then the fireworks explode, the cheering begins, and in march the Hamas scouts, bashing drums, looking every inch the future Hamas fighters many will be. Then the grooms, aged about 18 to about 28. They are holding hands with their young nieces and cousins, little girls aged from about 3 to 8, made up to the nines, wearing white wedding dresses.

So what has gotten the Loon world completely riled up? Well it seems that many of the anti-Muslims misconstrued the occasion and thought the grooms were actually marrying the little girls who were their nieces or cousins! Tim Marshall explains,

Our report on this put it into context saying that it took place just a mile from the Israeli border and was a message from Hamas about its strength confidence and future fighters. Oh and that the brides were elsewhere. Pretty straightforward.

It never struck me for a moment that the little girls might later be described in the bloggersphere as the brides! How naive I am.

Dozens, and I mean dozens, of websites took the video of the event and wrote lurid stories about Hamas mass paedophilia with headlines about ‘450 child brides’, and endless copy about how disgusting this was, how it showed how depraved Islam is, et al, ad infinitum. Site after site jumped on the story, linking from one totally wrong load of rubbish to the next. I’ll give credit to Tundra Tabloids who at least took down the video, but most sites just ploughed on regardless.

So which sites are these, and what have the various reactions been? Bartholomew gives us a hint,

The many websites that picked this up have responded in various ways: some issuing corrections, some quickly deleting their postings, and some insisting that it’s all true and that Marshall is trying to cover up the fact: “Why”, demands one site “would Tim Marshall defend the Gaza pedophiles?” One of the sites that decided to scrub was Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch, which is worth noting as Spencer claims some sort of academic expertise on Islam.

Where does this collective hallucination and fixation on fiction originate from? The simple, straight forward answer is that it comes from the collective hysterical hatred shared by those who despise Islam and Muslims. It is a manifestation of Islamophobia, “ie. an irrational fear of Islam.” It springs from the idea that Islam is evil, inherently backwards, oppressive to women. The talking point goes, “Muhammad was a pedophile who married 9 year old A’isha and these vile Mooslims must be doing it now on this massive scale!” George Readings puts this into some context in a recent post on The Spitoons (via Bartholemew),

The “argument” goes that Muslims believe Muhammad to be a perfect model for behaviour and therefore the fact of Muhammad’s marriage to A’isha somehow proves Islam to be a depraved religion…This attempt to aggressively apply a modern British definition of paedophilia to seventh century Arabia strikes me as a sign of severe anthropological illiteracy…

…Marriage to a pre-pubescant child with whom consummation occurs upon reaching puberty is not a model most people would be happy with in the modern world (although Bolivia sets the age of consent at puberty).

Which is probably why nearly all Muslim countries have reformed these rules beyond recognition. The age of consent in Algeria and Malaysia is 16, in Indonesia it is 19 for males and 16 for females. In Egypt it’s 18 for both and Tunisia 20. Reform has not, however, come to Saudi Arabia. Back in April the world followed the case of a mother trying to obtain a divorce for her eight-year-old daughter who had been married off by her father to a friend he owed a debt. In the end she succeeded and now there is even talk of Saudi Arabia preventing marriage before the age of 18.

Poor Tim Marshall scoured the net in an attempt to let the Islamophobes know that they had gotten it wrong but what was the result?

I spent a few hours visiting websites and leaving comments where I could. To little avail. Instead I received a steady stream of vitriol. The best response was on a site run by a Debbie Schlussel . The guy who posted it said he wasn’t interested in the detail. The detail being the fact that the girls weren’t the brides.

It showed how much some people want to believe nonsense like this, as it re-inforces their prejudices, always a comfortably fun thing to do. But Hamas, and the jihadists do enough terrible things without having to make things up about them. Most of the stuff I read was outright, unthinking, gleeful, Islamophobia from people who clearly knew nothing about Arab popular culture. It’s as is they really beleive that because there are examples of child brides, it means all weddings are with child brides.

Debbie Schlussel is not new to LoonWatch readers, her doozy looniness is par for the course, so Tim shouldn’t worry, but he hit the nail on the head when he wrote, “It showed how much some people want to believe nonsense like this, as it re-inforces their prejudices, always a comfortably fun thing to do.” This is exactly the case — loaded with a bagful of prejudice and preconceived notions the Islamophobes took the wedding to be an affirmation of their pre-set conjectures.

When they were presented with the fact that they had stupendously erred some corrected themselves  while others went into denial. It almost reminds you of some Biblical literalists who believe the world is 6,000 years old, you can present them with all the overwhelming evidence that point to the fact that the world is many millions of times older but they will stubbornly hold on to their literal interepretation of the Bible. This is not much different, and serves as a sweeping manifestation of the kind of irrationality that ignorance coupled with hate can produce.

Robert Spencer Rejected by Academics: Still Supports Geert Wilders

Islamophobes Inc., Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders

Islamophobes Inc., Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders

Recently the American Library Association & the Ethnic & Multicultural Information Exchange Roundtable was to hold a discussion around the topic of Perspectives on Islam: Beyond the Stereotyping. For all intents and purposes the forthcoming discussion seemed very promising. It would confront and discuss the important issue of stereotypical portrayals of Islam and all that is associated with it such as myths and smears.

The program ran into trouble when without the knowledge of the other panelists, and seemingly without any sort of vetting, the ALA invited a well known anti-Islam and anti-Muslim blogger and writer — Robert Spencer. To say the least this made more than a few people scratch their heads. How could a reputable organization invite a well known Islamophobe who traffics in perpetuating stereotypes to speak at an event that is supposed to go beyond stereotypes?

To understand just how strange this was just imagine if the ALA had invited David Duke as a speaker on matters of race, say on a panel discussing the topic Perspectives on Race: Beyond Stereotyping. Does anyone believe he would be invited?

This was the very reason that a group of librarians, scholars and individuals sent a letter to the ALA protesting the inclusion of Robert Spencer on the panel. In it they detail their reasons and their apprehension at the severe lapse of judgment and error on the part of the ALA,

Even the most cursory overview of Mr. Spencer’s oeuvre makes it clear that in fact he has no place on a panel whose aim is to dispel stereotypes about Islam. Indeed, we, as librarians, scholars, and individuals are deeply concerned by ALA & EMIERT’s choice of Mr. Spencer for such a panel: Mr. Spencer espouses a view of Islam as a system of belief which is essentially violent, undemocratic, totalitarian, exclusive and at war with all non-Muslims. Mr. Spencer in fact goes as far as to equate Islam with fascism. According to him,

The misbegotten term “Islamo-fascism” is wholly redundant: Islam itself is a kind of fascism that achieves its full and proper form only when it assumes the powers of the state.” (www.jihadwatch.com/islam101)

Hence a question arises as to the justification for inviting a speaker who cannot see anything positive about Islamic beliefs, cultures, societies, histories, etc. to talk to an audience in order to dispel negative views of Islam. We are indeed saddened and puzzled by ALA’s choice for their panel, especially in that this appears to be a rare opportunity to educate people about Islam against the backdrop of an overwhelming atmosphere of ignorance, and negative stereotyping.

The open letter to the ALA resulted in the other three panelists withdrawing their participation in protest against the inclusion of Robert Spencer who they only learned was going to be a part of the panel a few days ago. This resulted eventually in the ALA canceling the event.

This cancellation served as a continuing repudiation of Spencer by scholars and his growing inability to cross over into the mainstream. Increasingly, Spencer’s voice is limited to the echo chamber that is the cottage industry of Islam-bashing which contains such “luminaries” as Debbie Schlussel, Brigitte Gabriel, and Andrew Bostom (!).

In response to being outed by the academics and librarians Spencer wrote a usual shrill diatribe in which he attacked his former friend Charles Johnson, CAIR and accused the ALA of “caving-in” to pressure. Yet by responding it seems Spencer has just dug himself further in a hole that leaves him wide open to further accusations, of at the very least, brazenly supporting loony anti-Muslimism and Islamophobia.

This is all the more revealing in light of a recent comment on Loonwatch from an obvious Spencer fan by the name of John Jackson on a post about Debbie Schlussel. In it Jackson agrees with another commenter Sami and says, “You do a great disservice to Robert Spencer by lumping him in with Debbie Schlussel as ‘Islamophobes’. Schlussel goes off the deep end frequently. I have never seen Spencer do the same.”

It may be true (though I don’t think so) that Spencer doesn’t go off the deep end “frequently” but he does go off the deep end — a lot. Also he takes issue with Spencer being lumped in with the likes of Schlussel, but why not? The only difference between Debbie Schlussel and Robert Spencer is that Debbie doesn’t hide her hate and vitriol against Muslims or Islam nor does she attempt to couch it in an air of objectivity. Furthermore, it wasn’t Loonwatch that first lumped Spencer in with Schlussel but the excellent report produced by FAIR titled Smearcasters.

In Spencer’s response to ALA’s cancellation he lashed out against Smearcasters and to the chagrin of John Jackson he didn’t qualify his attack by saying that some of the profiled such as Debbie Schlussel go off the “deep end frequently” or that Debbie was a “retard” as Sami wrote,  instead he defended them saying, “In reality, the “Smearcasters” report was a political hit piece on an array of the opponents of CAIR and its allied groups.”

For Spencer those profiled by Smearcasters were the victims of a “hit piece” on mere “opponents of CAIR and its allied groups.” Yes, nothing to do with their hate and bigotry Spencer! This is nothing less than an indirect endorsement of all those in the report, and so it is not us lumping in Spencer with what Spencer supporter Sami called “retards” but Spencer himself.

In the same response Spencer further goes after CAIR and defends his alliance with Geert Wilders, the controversial and fascist European politician stating,

CAIR’s Honest Ibe Hooper doesn’t have to resort to such circumlocutions. I didn’t actually have anything to do with that conference in Florida, but Hoop could just say straight out that I support Wilders. And so should anyone who holds dear the Western values that are threatened by Islamic supremacists — notably, as I said above, the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of all people before the law.

There it is straight from his pen and that’s why Spencer keeps digging himself a hole. His support for Geert Wilders is his downfall because any objective and thorough understanding of Geert Wilders, what he has said and what he represents will prove the lie to the claim made by Spencer that he cares about Democratic freedoms and Rights because if he did he wouldn’t support Wilders and company.

Wilders is on record stating that religious freedom, a cornerstone of the foundation of modern democracies everywhere should not apply to Muslims,

Islam is not a religion… the Quran is a book that calls for hatred, that calls for violence, for murder, for terrorism, for war, and submission…We should also stop pretending that Islam is a religion…the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam.

This is not the only place that Wilders has made this statement he has repeated it to roaring applause at Synagogues and conferences.

It is unbelievable that Spencer would now attempt to posit himself as an objective academic researching and writing on Islam when he unabashedly “supports” odious and reprehensible individuals such as Geert Wilders. Who can take Spencer’s grandiose claim seriously that he is fighting for the freedom of speech, freedom of conscious, indeed for Western civilization itself against “Islamic supremacism” when he supports and calls on us to support one who would infringe on the right of individuals to freely practice their faith.

What can you expect though from one who joined a group that aimed for a reconquista of modern day Turkey, forcibly replacing its Muslim population with a Christian one?

Also Read Svend’s take: Joke of the Day: Robert Spencer as Bridge-Builder