Washington DC: Geller is back with another anti-Muslim Metro ad

AFDI-Islamic-Jew-hatred-ad

Washington DC: Geller is back with another anti-Islam Metro ad

In 2012, anti-Islam blogger Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative funded ads throughout the Metro system with a quote from the Quran next to a photo of the burning Twin Towers. Ads that cost Metro $35,000 over a failed effort to block them.

Now she’s back with another awful ad, this one claiming that “Islamic jew-hatred” is “in the Quran” as a response to an ad about “Israel’s occupation” from the American Muslims for Palestine. From Geller’s blog:

The DC Metro transit authority made multiple demands for the substantiation of every claim in our ads before they would accept the ad, and I, of course, happily provided that substantiation. The libelous American Muslims for Palestine antisemitic ad (below) did not have to provide substantiation. The MTA had no problem with their antisemitism. And you cannot provide evidence of a smear and a bigoted lie. But it is proof of the AMP’s hate.

Our ads are in response to the vicious Jew-hating ads that American Muslims for Palestine unleashed on Washington, DC Metro buses last month. And might I add, had we not sued and won in NYC and DC for violating our First Amendment rights when they tried to refuse our previous ads, our ads might never have gone up.

Because of the 2012 court ruling stating that Geller’s ads are protected speech, a Metro spokesperson said they declined to challenge them this time around. But they do sport the disclaimer: “This is a paid advertisement sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative. Advertising space is a designated public forum and does not imply WMATA’s endorsement of any views expressed.”

For the uninitiated, here’s a description of Geller from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which labeled her Stop Islamization of America foundation a hate group:

Pamela Geller is the anti-Muslim movement’s most visible and flamboyant figurehead. She’s relentlessly shrill and coarse in her broad-brush denunciations of Islam and makes preposterous claims, such as that President Obama is the “love child” of Malcolm X. She makes no pretense of being learned in Islamic studies, leaving the argumentative heavy lifting to her Stop Islamization of America partner Robert Spencer. Geller has mingled comfortably with European racists and fascists, spoken favorably of South African racists, defended Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic and denied the existence of Serbian concentration camps. She has taken a strong pro-Israel stance to the point of being sharply critical of Jewish liberals.

DCist.com, 14 May 2014

See also “This deeply offensive ad is plastered on public buses in Washington, DC”,PolicyMic, 14 May 2014

When Neo-Cons And Liberals Unite: The Case of Anti-Muslim Crusader Ayaan Hirsi Ali

 

by  on April 12, 2014 in FeatureLoon-at-large

 

040914_kelly_ali_640

By Garibaldi

For far too long Liberal and Neo-Con supporters of Ayaan Hirsi Ali have either ignored, evaded, denied or flat out refused to acknowledge the existence of her hateful beliefs and agenda. One likely reason is that they have spent years promoting Ayaan in every conceivable way and instead of facing the reality of her philosophy, and the implications of her proposed policy solutions to the so-called “Muslim problem,” they have chosen to bury their heads in the sand.

The recent controversy over Brandeis University first awarding and then withdrawing Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s “honorary degree” has demasked a lot of individuals who proclaim that they are about “equality,” “rationality,” “fairness,” “acceptance,” “freedom,” and against “violence” and “hatred.”

Take prominent Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, who, as RazaInc. brought to our attention, used his perch as a respectable academic to rally support behind Ayaan and vilify Brandeis’ decision:

Steven_Pinker

Steven_Pinker2

Michael Shermer, editor of the Scientific American had the blind audacity to compare Ayaan Hirsi Ali to Martin Luther King, Jr.! Comparing a preacher of non-violent peaceful civil disobedience to an individual who advocates militarily “crushing Islam.” The irony!

Michael_Shermer

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFrF), an avowed secularists/atheists organization that has in the past awarded Ayaan Hirsi Ali its “Emperor has no clothes award,” (looks like FFrF actually has no clothes) came to Ayaan’s defense. FFrF uncritically parroted the liesAyaan Hirsi Ali has propagated about much of her personal biography and called on its supporters to tell Brandeis to “apologize and re-offer its honorary degree.”

Sectarian New Atheists of all political bents from the libertarian Neo-Con Sam Harris to liberals such as Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher have in the past happily trotted out Ayaan Hirsi Ali as their tokenized anti-Muslim heroine. Of course they weren’t going to allow for any criticism of their pal, and like clockwork they were backing her up:

Sam_Harris_Ayaan_Brandeis

Richard_Dawkins_Ayaan

So what company do these Atheist academics, institutions, Neo-Cons and Liberals find themselves in? Islamophobes. Such as the banned from the UK Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller and extreme right news outlets like Breitbart (whose journalist Pat Dullard called for “massacring Muslims in the street”), Right-Wing NewsHuman Events, etc.

For her part, Ayaan Hirsi Ali did not engage the substantive criticism of students, faculty and others who called her out on her anti-Muslim invective. Instead she falsely, and with her characteristic bigotry suggests that Brandeis’ withdrawal was motivated by fear of violence from offended Muslims.

The poverty of mainstream journalism has also been exposed, as most, if not all major newspapers and media outlets continue to falsely describe Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a “critic of Islam.”

Brandeis students nix Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali. What a pity.–Los Angeles Times
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Victim of an honor killing, Brandeis-style–Fox News
Brandeis Cancels Plan to Give Honorary Degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Critic of Islam–The New York Times
Brandeis withdraws honor to activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a critic of Islam–Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Tablet Gives Moses Award to Ayaan Hirsi Ali–Tablet Magazine (Interestingly as Matt Berkman notes “Your parenthetical claim that you upheld the same principle when Rashid Khalidi and John Judis were disinvited is disingenuous. What you actually did was say that disinviting people is ‘heavy-handed and inelegant,’ and then went on to argue that critics of Israel should not be allowed to speak in Jewish venues to begin with (quote: ‘To argue that only an openness to all points of view is acceptable… is to adhere to the most flightless form of relativism’”))
Brandeis, Unlike Hirsi Ali, Surrendered to Intimidation–National Review Online
Brandeis won’t give honorary degree to Islam critic–Boston Globe
Under fire, Brandeis cancels plan to honor anti-Islam feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali–Christian Science Monitor
Brandeis Scraps Honor for Dutch Anti-Islam Activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali–Jewish Daily Forward
Human Rights Activist Slams University’s ‘Deplorable’ Move to Withdraw Honorary Degree Because of Her Critical Comments About Islam–The Blaze
Brandeis Backtracks on Honor for Activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Critic of Islam–The Wall Street Journal

Ayaan supporters like Steven Pinker, Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, Freedom From Religion Foundation, David Silverman, Atheists of America, mainstream newspapers and media outlets that describe Ayaan as an “Islam critic” and “feminist” need to stop abetting mendacity, be honest and answer the following questions:

Do you believe, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali does, that “we are at war with Islam?

Do you believe, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali does, that “Islam must be crushed,” in “all forms,” including “militarily?”

Do you believe, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali does, that the US Constitution should be changed specifically to discriminate against Muslims, strip them of their civil rights? “Abolish Muslim schools?”

Do you believe, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali does, that the veil should be banned in France and minarets in Switzerland?

Do you believe, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali does, that the “silence of the Left-wing” is responsible for the heinous mass murders by Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik (who thought Ayaan deserved a “Noble Prize”)?

Do you believe, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali does, that Atheists and Christians must get “into the business of conversion?

These are only a few of the questions that supporters of Ayaan must answer or they are complicit in her beliefs and stand accused of their silence being their assent.

The last point I want to revisit is that there is an assumption by Neo-Con and Liberal supporters of Ayaan that she is a “women’s rights” activist and champion. What exactly has she done for women’s rights? Who has she helped?

The truth is that Ayaan actually uses serious issues around injustices in the Muslim world to promote herself (much like Clarion Fund has done with Honor Diaries). Her supporters see a self-affirming image, one that validates their beliefs: atheism, the backwardness, barbarity and danger of Islam and Muslims.

As Muslim/Islam bashers continue to blindly support Ayaan’s hatred, heroic Muslim women and their allies (including, gasp! many Muslim men) continue to challenge the injustices before them in their nations and locales. Whether it is the work of Ifrah Ahmed to end FGMAsma Hanif of Muslimat an Nisa‘s work with homeless and battered women, or organizations likeBAOBAB in Nigeria that promote women’s rights within a customary, statutory and religious law paradigm.

Also read:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an Islamophobe who hates all muslims

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Challenge of Progressive Critique

Islamismism: Hirsi, Berman and Ramadan on Islam

 

The return of ‘puppy jihad’

Pamela-Geller-Puppy-Jihad

The return of ‘puppy jihad’

You may remember from last year the laughable story about the Muslim Brotherhood using puppies as weapons by dousing them in petrol, setting them on fire and then throwing them at the Egyptian army. Both Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller reduced themselves to objects of ridicule by taking that nonsense seriously.

Well, apparently this form of urban warfare has caught on elsewhere. Under the headline “Puppy jihad: New levels of cruelty reached by Muslims in Jerusalem”, Geller reports that Palestinians in the West Bank town of Abu Dis have attacked an Israeli police patrol by throwing four puppies at them, resulting in the death of the animals so callously used as missiles.

Quite what military advantage the perpetrators hoped to gain from their action is unclear, as in this case the puppies weren’t even set alight. But according to the report reproduced by Geller, Palestinians now prefer to throw soft, furry animals rather than rocks at Israeli state forces.

Geller happily repeats this story, which originates on a Facebook page rather than the Israeli press, while quoting the same hadiths that Spencer used to explain the first case of “puppy jihad”. In the present case, Spencer has so far failed to endorse the report. Perhaps he reasons that, having made a laughing stock of himself once, there’s no point doing so a second time.

Swedish Defence League leader jailed

Kamil Ryba, SDL

Swedish Defence League leader jailed 

The anti-fascist publication Expo has reported that Kamil Ryba, head of the EDL’s sister organisation the Swedish Defence League, has been sentenced to six months in prison for threatening the staff at GT, the Göteborg edition of the Swedish daily Expressen.

Ryba turned up at the GT offices last December to protest against Expressen publishing the names of people who had anonymously incited racial hatred. He threw an egg and said he would come back with a knife next time. Ryba subsequently returned and left a package containing a knife and a copy of the Qur’an, which was addressed to the editors of Expressen and GT. The package was seen as a possible bomb threat and GT staff were forced to evacuate the building.

Ryba pleaded not guilty. According to GT, he claimed that by including a knife with the Qur’an he intended to convey that Islam is a violent ideology, not a religion. However, he was convicted of the offence of violating civil liberty, on the grounds that he had made threats that endangered freedom of expression. Ryba’s lawyer stated that he will appeal against the verdict.

Kamil Ryba with Stephen Lennon (“Tommy Robinson”), Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller at ‘counterjihad’ rally in Stockholm in 2012

 

From Moses to Moses: Traversing two Maimonides Quotes on Muslims

From Moses to Moses: Traversing two Maimonides Quotes on Muslims

March 30 marks the birthday of Moses Maimonides. As such, it seemed to be a good time to discuss two of his quotes that have been used in discussions of Islam and Islamophobia in part due to the range of views that seem to be expressed in them by the same author.

Original Guest Post

By JustStoppingBy

Recently, Robert Spencer tried to make a distinction between Allah and God, arguing that “even though they may share a name, any examination of the particulars of Christian and Islamic theology reveals that the deities in question are quite different in character.”

Note that Spencer does not say that Christians and Muslims have “different views of the same deity” but discusses “the deities in question.” In doing this, he invites the reader to reach the conclusion that the “Muslim Allah” is not the same as the “Christian God.” Danios has already provided a thorough explanation on the use of the term Allah by Jews and Christians in pre-Islamic times. As Danios points out, a common Islamophobic response is to claim that Muslims appropriated the term Allah while referring to a different entity, perhaps a moon god, but not to the god that Jews and Christians worship.

To further create a distinction between Allah and the Christian God, Spencer has asked whether the hajj is an act of apostasy based on his claims that the rites involved in the hajj are of Hindu origin. Of course, it is widely accepted that polytheists made pilgrimages to Mecca and that the Ka’bah was a pagan shrine that contained idols before the advent of Islam, including a belief that pre-Islamic pilgrims to Mecca, “[w]ith all their polytheism and idolatry, they too used to circle the Ka’bah and kiss the Black Stone.” So, even if Spencer were right, that would not seem to be a particularly Earth-shattering revelation.

Since many who propound this “deities” theory won’t listen to Danios perhaps they will listen to some other views. We can start by moving a little away from the Christian-Muslim deity distinction that Spencer wants to draw and referring to a statement by perhaps the most renowned post-Biblical Jewish scholar, Rabbi Moses Maimonides (Rambam). In Responsa #448, Maimonides writes as follows (ellipses in Wikipedia, bolding added; alternate translation also available):

The Ishmaelites are not at all idolaters; [idolatry] has long been severed from their mouths and hearts; and they attribute to God a proper unity, a unity concerning which there is no doubt. And because they lie about us, and falsely attribute to us the statement that God has a son, is no reason for us to lie about them and say that they are idolaters … And should anyone say that the house that they honor [the Kaaba] is a house of idolatry and an idol is hidden within it, which their ancestors used to worship,then what of it? The hearts of those who bow down toward it today are [directed] only toward Heaven … [Regarding] the Ishmaelites today – idolatry has been severed from the mouths of all of them [including] women and children. Their error and foolishness is in other things which cannot be put into writing because of the renegades and wicked among Israel [i.e., apostates]. But as regards the unity of God they have no error at all.

Maimonides’ life covered various phases of Muslim-Jewish relations. Maimonides was born in Córdoba in 1135, at the tail end of the longest potential extent of the “Golden Age” of Spanish Jewry, which saw the blossoming of Jewish culture and the attainment by individual Jews of high positions in commercial and public life. As a result of the Arab political dominance, Maimonides knew Arabic, read many texts in Arabic, and composed many of his most famous works in Arabic and referred to God as Allah in his Arabic writing.

In 1148, Córdoba was conquered by the Almohads, an Berber-Muslim dynasty that revoked the dhimmi status of Jews. There is, no doubt, much debate about the quality of the life of a dhimmi, but scholars have noted that “in any historical case, these relatively abstract and general provisions of the dhimma could and did materialize as either a tolerant and even liberating arrangement, or at the other extreme, a culturally repressive policy within which religious freedom is a hollow formality.” (María Rosa Monocal, The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain,” p. 73. Garibaldi reviews the book here.) Life for Jews under the Almohads went from the previous tolerant and liberating arrangement to the other extreme, with the result that “[m]any Jews were forced to convert, but due to suspicion by the authorities of fake conversions, the new converts had to wear identifying clothing that set them apart and made them available to public scrutiny with many forced to convert or go into exile.” The point of this is not to dwell on history, but to put Maimonides’ responsa into context. It was written not by someone who had experienced only positive relations between Muslims and Jews, but who had also witnessed among the harshest of relations. And one should note that after fleeing Córdoba, Maimonides eventually again found himself in a place where he could establish good relations with Muslim authorities, becoming court physician to Saladin.

So, what does Maimonides have to say about how Muslims view God? Returning to the quote, we see that Maimonides says that “[idolatry] has long been severed from their mouths and hearts.” This, is in fact the same story told in Islam’s view of its own history: before Muhammad, the Ishmaelites (as Maimonides refers to them) in and around Mecca were idolaters. But, since the advent of Islam, “they attribute to God a proper unity.” The Islamic term for a “proper unity” istawhid, which, in essence, is not just a superficial form of “unity” but a “proper unity” that has an influence on Islamic philosophy and jurisprudence. It is also possible that Maimonides was even distinguishing between the “proper” Jewish and Muslim view of God’s unity and what he would consider the “improper” Christian view of a trinitarian unity. Nowhere does Maimonides even suggest that Muslims are worshiping some different deity or that they do not share the Jewish view of God’s character.

Maimonides further argues that “should anyone say … [the Kaba’a] is a house of idolatry and an idol is hidden within it, which their ancestors used to worship, then what of it? The hearts of those who bow down toward it today are [directed] only toward Heaven.” This can be read as a pre-rebuttal to arguments made by Robert Spencer about the Kaba’a and the hajj based on views, true or not, about their pre-Islamic origins. As Maimonides points out, if Muslims view Allah as the same god Jews view in Heaven and direct their prayers accordingly, pre-Islamic history does not affect their monotheism. Say what you want about any possible idol remnant in the Ka’bah or the etymology of the term Allah, it is clear that the “hearts of [Muslims] today are only toward Heaven.”

Now, why is Maimonides such an interesting person to quote from when countering Spencer’s Islamophobic rhetoric? For one thing, Spencer’s polemical partner Pamela Geller has also quoted from Maimonides, believing that it helps the position that she and Spencer take in general and in her fights about her ads about a choice “between the civilized man and the savage” in particular. Here is a quote she uses, from Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen:

Let Ye understand, my brothers, the Holy One Blessed HE through the trap created by our iniquities cast us amongst this nation, the people of Ishmael [Muslims] whose oppressiveness is firmly upon us and they connive to do us wrong and despicably downgrade us as the Almighty decreed against us (Deuteronomy 32:31, “Your enemies shall judge you”).

There never came against Israel a more antagonistic nation. They oppress us with the most oppressive measures to lessen our number, reduce us, and make us as despicable as they themselves are [Psalms 120:5].

Geller, misleadingly introduces this quote by saying that Maimonides “said this of Islam.” She further introduces the purely religious term Muslims in brackets where Maimonides referred to the “people of Ishmael,” a term that could have ethnic, political, and/or religious connotations.

On the religious aspect, while Maimonides did not accept Islam, it is clear from the earlier quote that he fully accepted that Muslims, or Ishmaelites, were monotheists whose hearts are directed only toward heaven in prayer. Instead, the conflict he describes is a political one, in particular with the Yemeni Shi’a of the time. Ultimately, “Maimonides interceded with Saladin in Egypt, and shortly thereafter the persecution came to an end.”

There are a few additional points worth noting in this quote from Maimonides. First, the reference to “the people of Ishmael” may sound like a form of generalization today, but no more so than the positive references to Ishmaelites in the first Maimonides quote or his reference to Jews as Israel in the second.

Second, unlike Geller, Maimonides does not attempt to create a picture in which one side is civilized and the other savage. Indeed, Maimonides describes Israel’s exile as a “trap created by our iniquities.” Traditionally, this referred to the “baseless hatred,” or the religious and political disputes, mistakes, violence, and venom that existed at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple and the onset of the Exile. Thus, Maimonides’ approach was not to turn a political dispute or suffering persecution into a basis for misrepresenting the religious views of others. Nor did he argue that those of his religion were pure and those of another religion were not; rather, he pointed out sinful behavior in both. In Maimonides’ view, monotheism was a good quality, and, from the first quote, we see that he was able to acknowledge what he saw as the good in his political opponents rather than feeling the need to suppress any of those qualities or actions as if his entire position would fall apart if his political adversaries had any good side. In addition, when Maimonides corresponded with a community of Jews who were being persecuted by a Muslim majority, he made a point of noting that even the Jews who then felt persecuted should not ignore their group’s own history of hatred and violence, including political mistakes that were part of the reason for their exile.

While there are aspects to the two quotes from Maimonides that one can agree or disagree with, they do reflect an overall attitude that contrasts sharply with those of Spencer and Geller.

While Maimonides had political differences with various Muslim groups, he did not seek to mischaracterize their religion or their religious beliefs. For there can be no true peace with the Other without recognition of the truth of their beliefs and behavior and honest dialogue based on those truths, a sharp contrast to the insidious Spencer/Geller policy of no peace, no truthful recognition, and no honest dialogue. Compare Maimonides’ recognition of Islam’s positive monotheistic quality, even when he disagreed politically with Muslims, with Spencer, who has argued that “the only good Muslim is a bad Muslim,” meaning that in his view, the only morally good Muslim is one who is not an Islamically good Muslim.

In terms of lessons for today, it may be helpful to see how Maimonides separated the political battles he faced from the opportunities to engage in religious prejudice against the beliefs of the Other. This did not mean that he refrained from political activity, as seen by his appeal to Saladin. But, neither did he refrain from standing up for the truth about another group’s religious beliefs. In viewing how Maimonides conducted these two fights, perhaps it can be said that the lesson is that we should fight our political battles as if there were no religious prejudice, and we should fight religious prejudice as if there were no political battles.

Some Jewish Reasons Why Inviting Pamela Geller To Speak Is Not Kosher

Not Kosher

None other than Spencer’s bestest friend in the whole wide world!

Some Jewish Reasons Why Inviting Pamela Geller To Speak Is Not Kosher

Loonwatch has previously pointed out that Islamophobia and Judeophobia are frequently related. In this open letter to synagogues and Jewish organizations planning to have Pamela Geller speak, Jewish Loonwatcher Just Stopping By points out that not only is Pamela Geller Islamophobic, but her Islamophobia leads her to take anti-Jewish positions as well. Loonwatchers are encouraged to send copies of or links to this letter, or to compose a polite but informative message of their own, when they hear of Geller planning to speak at a synagogue or Jewish organization.

Some Jewish Reasons Why Inviting Pamela Geller To Speak Is Not Kosher

Guest Post by Just Stopping By

An Open Letter to Synagogues and Jewish Organizations Considering Inviting Pamela Geller to Speak: Pamela Geller Promotes Hatred of Jews and Jewish Practices

Pamela Geller frequently arranges to speak at venues by claiming to be a human rights advocate. Often, when the venues involved learn of her public Islamophobia, they decide to cancel her speech.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President Emeritus of the Union for Reform Judaism noted in 2013, “The recent decisions by a synagogue in Great Neck and another outside of Toronto to cancel appearances by anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller—both were rescheduled at other venues—have made headlines in the Jewish press and raised  interesting questions for the Jewish community.” Rabbi Yoffie states in his commentary that “Pamela Geller has no place in an American synagogue.  She is a bigot and purveyor of hate.”

Pamela Geller’s anti-Muslim hatred should be sufficient reason to not invite her to speak or to withdraw any invitation already given. In addition, as has often been pointed out, hate against one group often leads to hate against another. And, even if Pamela Geller does not mean to promote hate against Jews and Jewish practices, in many ways she does just that. Below are ten ideas that you may not be aware that Pamela Geller has put forth that, in fact, are conducive to promoting hatred of Jews and Jewish practices.

1. Geller is effectively against kosher meat, having described a process nearly identical to shichitah (kosher slaughtering) as an action that yields “meat slaughtered by means of a barbaric, torturous and inhuman method: Islamic slaughter. Halal slaughter involves killing the animal by cutting the trachea, the esophagus, and the jugular vein, and letting the blood drain out…” The same could be said about shichitah, as the slaughtering method is subject to the same concerns.

2. Geller objects to reasonable accommodations for those who want to wear religious headwear like a kippa / yarmulke. Similarly, she points out an Obama appointee is “the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House,” (bolding in Geller’s post), licensing a similar smear against kippa- or sheitel-wearing Jews.

3. Geller objects to universities offering optional classes and conferences in religious law. This is true even when those conferences serve goals such as applying pressure on non-state actors to reduce civilian casualties by addressing “the lack of standards for dealing with the rise of irregular armies or the inability of the law to accommodate asymmetric forms of attacks by non-state entities against sovereign states.” This position could be used against schools like the largest Catholic university in the United States, which has a Center for Jewish Law & Judaic Studies.

4. Geller objects when a government official uses a Semitic language to speak to an audience, calling it “speechifying in” that language. This attitude could be similarly used to criticize U.S. government officials who reach out to Jews in Hebrew or, moving beyond purely Semitic languages, in the Yiddish phrases that former Secretary of State Colin Powell sometimes invoked.

5. Geller objects to a private airline removing pork from its menu when traveling to/from a Middle Eastern country, even though many American Jews are familiar and comfortable with pork-freeflights to the Middle East.

6. Geller objects to mosques‘ existence and construction, often under the pretext of zoning issues, using arguments that could be turned against synagogues. She further “calls for immediate investigation into foreign mosque funding in the West and for new legislation making foreign funding of mosques in non-Muslim nations illegal,” a principle that could be turned against foreign funding or support for synagogues, and presumably other religious endeavors such as Chabad Houses, everywhere in the world other than in Israel.

7. Geller objects to the use of sharia courts for private dispute resolution, though this could affect b’tei din (Jewish courts) and though Jewish, Muslim, and other religious courts are publicly financed in Israel.

8. Geller objects to public schools having religious holidays off when those holidays are for religious minorities at the school, though Jewish groups often make the case for schools with large Jewish student populations having Jewish holidays off.

9. Geller promotes intolerance by using mocking terminology for religious figures, such as “Moe”for Muhammad, while Jews have rightly been upset at the use of mocking references to Jewishnames and should be uniquely concerned with nomenclature given issues such as references to the Tanakh or the “Old” Testament.

10. Geller spreads conspiracy theories about what she has called the “Islamic Geopolitical Influence in Financial Markets.” Do synagogues and Jewish organizations really want to sponsor a speaker who promulgates theories about the influence of members of a particular religion on global financial markets?

Pamela Geller’s statements about Muslims are hateful enough that on that basis alone she should not be invited to speak at a synagogue or Jewish organization. Jews would not approve of other groups making similar statements about us, and we should remember that we should not do to others what is hateful for us. Beyond that, when we go and study Geller’s statements, we see that her agenda is not pro-Jewish. In fact, it is conducive to hatred against Jews and Jewish practices; she does not even have a leg to stand on.

How far do Geller’s statements go in providing support for hatred against Jews? Consider this quote from Geller, with bolding added, about a rabbi who called out Geller’s bigotry:

The quisling “rabbi” Jill Jacobs, the executive director of T’ruah, which spent $10,000 on ads last fall to oppose my pro-Israel ads, said “I wish that none of this had ever started.” Really, “Rabbi”? Jacobs will answer to higher authority. Jacobs was silent when vicious anti-Israel ads ran in cities across the country. Jacobs only got involved to condemn me for standing up against the vicious anti-semitic ad campaigns running on transit platforms from NY to California. Jacobs is not a rabbi — Jacobs is a quisling, an enemy with a Mona Lisa smile. She should be stripped of any rabbinical status (I am sure she’s of the ridiculous “reformed” [sic] movement — which no practicing Jew takes seriously).

A speaker at a synagogue or Jewish organization should be someone whose talk leads to a good and pleasant experience for those seated in the audience, not someone who uses blog post titles to spread division-inciting baseless hatred while trivializing Jewish history. Geller’s statements are not the kind of speech that a Jewish soul should yearn for; for if it does, our hope for peace and understanding with Muslims and other Jews may be lost.

It is understandable that a synagogue or Jewish organization could be misled by a carefully edited biography about Pamela Geller that seems to show her as a civil rights activist. But, analyses by the Southern Poverty Law Center show that she is an avid anti-Muslim bigot. That should be sufficient to deny her a position as a speaker at a synagogue or Jewish organization. But, given Geller’s effective anti-Jewish agenda, if you do decide to invite her, remember not to serve kosher meat or to refer to any rabbis who oppose her, especially those of the Reform movement though also Modern Orthodox, as a rabbi (instead of as a “rabbi”), lest you do something she finds offensive. Of course, the best idea is to either not invite her at all, or, like other synagogues and Jewish organizations have done, to withdraw an invitation you have provided before being made aware of Geller’s anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish positions.

Court upholds UK ban on Geller and Spencer

Abhijit Pandya

Abhijit Pandya

Court upholds UK ban on Geller and Spencer

Over at Atlas Shrugs, Pamela Geller directs us to an article which she describes as a “thoughtful and stunning indictment of the latest tribulation in our legal battle against the de facto sharia ban on Robert Spencer and me in the UK”. The article, entitled “The end of free speech in Britain”, reveals the welcome news that last week a British court rejected Geller and Spencer’s appeal against the home secretary’s decision last June to ban them from entering the UK.

The name of the author, Abhijit Pandya – described by Geller as “one of our British solicitors” – may be familiar. That’s because Pandya has established his own reputation for frothing-at-the-mouth Islamophobia. Back in 2011, when he stood as the UK Independence Party candidate in the Leicester South parliamentary by-election, Pandya wrote a blog post in which he described Islam as “morally flawed and degenerate”and declared his agreement with Geert Wilders’ view of the faith as a “retarded ideology”. He added: “Islamic culture inherently rejects the Western way of life, more specifically the Protestant work ethic that has successfully built the economies of the West.”

The local paper, the Leicester Mercury, published an editorial condemning Pandya’s blog post as “a wildly inflammatory rant which boiled down to a crass and nasty characterisation of Muslims as lazy, intolerant spongers who are a threat to the British way of life. It was not part of a reasoned debate about multiculturalism, but a series of sweeping, unsubstantiated generalisations which demonise the Muslim community.”

So, clearly, Pandya was an entirely appropriate individual to act as Geller and Spencer’s legal representative in the UK.

Robert Spencer Discovers Chess Set Jihad

Islamized Chess

by Ilisha

In the widely used Staunton chess set, the king is topped with a Christian cross. At this years’s World Youth Chess Championship in the United Arab Emirates, a new design has been introduced. The Christian cross has been replaced by the Islamic crescent.

Robert Spencer is outraged. He has accused “Islamic Supremacists” or “forcing” non-Muslim children to play with the “Islamized” chess sets. The horror!

Judging from Spencer’s outrage, one might think European Christians invented chess, and the Muslims are trying to co-opt “their” game.

In fact, Chess was brought to Christian Europe by Muslims. 

The precise origins of chess are unknown, but the game is thought to have originated in ancientIndia or Central Asia, and from there, spread to Persia. When the Arabs conquered Persia, chess was taken up by the Muslim world and subsequently spread to Europe.

One of the world’s oldest chess sets was found in Afrasaib, near Samarkand in Uzbekistan. The set included a king, chariot, vizier, horse, elephant, and 2 soldiers.

The traditional Staunton chess set Robert Spencer is defending as sacred is actually the product of European “Christianization” of earlier designs.From

The original Indian and Islamic game was adapted to reflect medieval European society, so that the Indian war elephant was replaced with the figure of the bishop. The rooks biting their shields resemble the Viking berserkers of Norse myth, while the pose of the queens is derived from depictions of the grieving Virgin Mary. The pawns, lacking any human features, reflect the abstract pieces used in the Islamic version of the game.

Are Muslims reclaiming the game of chess in the Name of Islam? Of course not. Many cultures have influenced chess over its 1500 year history, and unless you’re a paranoid “counter jihadist,” there’s no reason to view those contributions as divisive or sinister.

World Youth Chess Championships in UAE using Islamized chess sets

Jihad Wartch

..The photo above of some of the chess sets being used in this year’s tournament in Al Ain are just the icing on the cake. Traditional chess kings have a cross on the top (a design that has been in use for centuries). But this year in the UAE, they’ve removed the cross and replaced it with an Islamic crescent. A veteran chess player tells me: “In my entire life playing chess I have never seen such a thing.”

Some of the children in this year’s tournament are being forced to use these sets:here are some photos from the actual playing hall with participants using the Islamized sets..

…As you will see, only some of the sets have this Islamic design — probably because few have been made as yet, and the organizers need thousands of sets for such a huge tournament. So the majority of sets under use are “normal” style. But even so, the Islamic supremacist implications of the new design are self-evident. This is not a big deal, but obviously it was to the Emiratis who went to so much trouble to alter the set. Why not leave it as it was? Was it because of Islam’s abhorrence of the cross?

UPDATE: The Islamized sets are in wide use…

Pamela Geller has cross posted Spencer’s article on her blog Atlas Shrugs, and added her own paranoid twist:

Robert Spencer has broken the story that in the UAE, the World Youth Chess Championships are listing Israeli players as from the country “FIDE” (World Chess Federation), and are using Islamized chess pieces (above). If the Jews win the tournament, there will be a worldwide terror alert! All free nations must go to Defcon 5 — expect embassies to burn and millions to march and call for death to the Jews. The magic Islamic chess pieces will have lost their mojo — Allah is not pleased. Allah may be akbar, but these chess pieces will have proved not to be.

Yes, Pam, climb onto your broom and head to the UAE. You and your minions must save the world from the Muslim rage that will no doubt follow if the “magic Islamic chess pieces” fail to defeat “the Jews.”

Robert Spencer Lies About Praising Angola’s “Ban on Islam”

Angola Bans Islam Destroys Mosques

Omar Sacirbey, a journalist for the Religion News Service has a blog post summarizing Islamophobia and Muslim news over the past week in which he gives us a very nice commendation,

Loonwatch.com, an excellent website keeping tabs on the Islamophobe industry, reported this week that the anti-Muslim blog FreePatriot.org published a story about a Muslim mob in Egypt that threw a 15-year-old Christian girl out a third-floor window. The FreePatriot story came with a photo of a woman falling out a window. Pretty enraging stuff, except that the story is completely made-up. The 2011 photo of a woman jumping from a fifth-floor window was shot in Shanghai.

Sacirbey also noted that Islamophobes Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller both welcomed the, as it turns out, inaccurate news about Angola’s ban on Islam,

Speaking of false reports, did you catch the one about how Angola had banned Islam and was planning to raze mosques in the country? Anti-Muslim bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer both welcomed the false news. At The Daily Beast, Jacob Mchangama writes how the bloggers’ praise of Angola’s purported Islam ban contradicts their self-styled images as defenders of free speech.

There is a lot more that plainly showcases the anti-freedom bona fides of Spencer and Geller and can easily be found detailed on Spencerwatch.

In the comments section Spencer showed up, addressing Sacirbey in his usual arrogant and ego-driven tone, Spencer decided he would lie,

Robert Spencer

“Fabricating stories to demonize people is nothing new” — and you should know, Omar Sacirbey, since you’re a master at it yourself. Here, you are retailing the falsehoods of other smear artists, but are you too lazy to do any fact-checking? In reality, I never praised the supposed ban on Islam in Angola, and actually condemned it: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/11/angola-denies-it-banned-islam-destroyed-mosques.html

You’re a disgrace to journalism.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Other commenters pointed out Spencer’s hypocrisy and called him out for being a despicable liar,

Robert Spencer,

The hypocrite is YOU.

You did indeed welcome the possibility of the ban of Islam in Angola when news first broke of it, or at the very least did anything but condemn or even criticize it. From your own blog:

“This is extraordinarily strange news, given that the world is racing in the other direction, to accommodate and appease Islam. It will be interesting to see, if these reports turn out to be accurate, how the mainstream media and Islamic supremacist groups will find a way to accuse the Angolans of “racism.” In any case, clearly this is a national security issue, with Islamic supremacists and jihadists wreaking havoc in Nigeria and spreading elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa. There is no way in Angola any more than there is anywhere else to distinguish jihadis in Angola from the peaceful Muslims among whom they move, organize and recruit, and clearly this measure is designed to stop that activity. However, censure from the UN and the world “human rights” community will probably soon compel Angola to change its stance, and allow the jihadis free rein.”

Let’s analyze your statement here:

1 – The alternative to a ban of Islam (“the other direction” as you put it) is to “to accommodate and appease Islam.” And since your entire blog rants and shills about the prevalence and evil of such accommodation and appeasement, one can easily conclude which of the two “options” in your binary world view you prefer.

2 – You scoffed at the possibility – that if the ban turns out to be true – “how the mainstream media and Islamic supremacist groups will find a way to accuse the Angolans of “racism.”” You are clearly stating you would disagree with such opposition and in fact go further to mock those who would.

3 – You justify the possibility of the ban to be “clearly this is a national security issue”

4 – Incredibly, you argue that there is no way to distinguish between bad Muslims and good Muslims in Angola or anywhere in the world, essentially endorsing the ban as the final solution not only in Angola, but everywhere in the world: “There is no way in Angola any more than there is anywhere else to distinguish jihadis in Angola from the peaceful Muslims among whom they move, organize and recruit, and clearly this measure is designed to stop that activity.”

5 – You put those who would seek to oppose the ban on human rights grounds in quotes (“human rights”) suggesting that you do NOT agree that this would be a human rights issue. You indicate that the consequence of reversing the ban on a human rights ground is: “the free reign of Jihadis.” Now, unless you are now changing your mind that “the free reign of Jihadis” is an undesirable thing, you are explicitly warning against the reversal of the ban.

The full quote: “However, censure from the UN and the world “human rights” community will probably soon compel Angola to change its stance, and allow the jihadis free rein.”

In conclusion, the claim by Omar Sacirbey is 100% true.

You either have a painfully low IQ, are a shameless hypocrite, or suffer from severe amnesia when you come here to deride this fine journalist and accuse him of lying about your first response to the news of the ban when it is so clearly documented.

Moreover, if you are ashamed of your own views, why hold them, let alone parade them so proudly, in the first place? Time for a psychiatric evaluation.

Cordially,

Richard

It’s good to know that sane and well informed voices are willing to push back more and more against the hate brigades.

Robert Spencer backs ban on Islam

Robert-Spencer-backs-ban-on-Islam

Robert Spencer backs ban on Islam

Reports that the government of Angola has “banned Islam” have been welcomed by Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch.

Beneath a photograph of an Angolan minaret being demolished, Spencer writes:

This is extraordinarily strange news, given that the world is racing in the other direction, to accommodate and appease Islam. It will be interesting to see, if these reports turn out to be accurate, how the mainstream media and Islamic supremacist groups will find a way to accuse the Angolans of “racism.” In any case, clearly this is a national security issue, with Islamic supremacists and jihadists wreaking havoc in Nigeria and spreading elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa. There is no way in Angola any more than there is anywhere else to distinguish jihadis in Angola from the peaceful Muslims among whom they move, organize and recruit, and clearly this measure is designed to stop that activity. However, censure from the UN and the world “human rights” community will probably soon compel Angola to change its stance, and allow the jihadis free rein.

Spencer’s usual claim is that he is opposed to Islam and those it inspires to violence, not to Muslims as such, and on occasion he will even say that he welcomes attempts by Muslim reformers to reframe their faith in non-violent terms. He also presents himself as a champion of free speech and equal rights. When he and his friend Pamela Geller were banned from the UK earlier this year, Spencer indignantly declared that “our work is dedicated to the defense of the freedom of speech and equality of rights for all”.

His response to the news from Angola provides a useful refutation of all those fraudulent claims. Spencer holds that there “no way in Angola any more than there is anywhere else to distinguish jihadis … from the peaceful Muslims among whom they move, organize and recruit” (emphasis added). So, in his view, not only is a ban on Muslims practising their religion entirely legitimate but the circumstances that justify that ban apply everywhere.

Spencer, it should be remembered, is currently supporting former English Defence League leader Stephen Lennon in his efforts to build a new organisation in the UK that has supposedly broken from the extremism of the EDL.