Spencer and Geller Discover Judo Jihad?
by Sheila Musaji
Robert Spencer has just published Saudi judoka who got Olympic rules changed to wear hijab is blue belt and would never have qualified for Olympics which is a typical example of the Islamophobes use of innuendo to make non-existent points.
Spencer’s partner in hate published Islamic supremacism at the Olympics: When is a blue belt a black belt? When the Competitor is Muslim.
Here is how Spencer introduces an article about Judoka Wojdan Shaherkani’s Olympic loss
Now the whole story of the Saudi girl who got Olympic rules changed so she could compete in judo wearing a hijab becomes clear. She has only been practicing judo for two years, and is only a blue belt. She was only in the Olympics by special invitation. This is like grabbing some guy from the local karate school, some guy who has been stopping in on Fridays for awhile to get back into shape, and throwing him into the Olympics. The purpose of Wojdan Shaherkani’s Olympic appearance was twofold: to comply with IOC pressure for female athletes from Sharia states like Saudi Arabia, and to turn that situation into a victory by pressuring the IOC for a concession on hijabs, thereby reinforcing the principle that wherever Islamic law and Infidel laws and practices conflict, it is Infidel laws and practices that must give way.
It was to reinforce Islamic supremacism that the world was treated to the spectacle of an inexperienced blue belt competing in Olympic judo.
The key fact is buried in Spencer’s nonsense. She was in the Olympics by special invitation. What this means is that she was invited by the Olympic Committee to participate. She did not apply.
The IOC was anxious to have more representation of Muslim women from countries like Saudi Arabia who had never previously sent any women competitors. Spencers personal views on the purpose of Wojdan Shaherkani’s Olympic appearance are simply speculation informed by his own prejudices. In the sentence about the “purpose” of Shaherkani’s appearance, Spencer seems to have jumped from the IOC issuing a special invitation, to what he believes might be the Saudi rationale for allowing her to compete.
In fact, as the Wall Street Journal reported
Saudi Arabia ended its status as the last Olympic nation to refuse to send women athletes to the Olympics, agreeing just two weeks before the start of the London games to field two young female competitors, the International Olympic Committee announced.
The concession by Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s most religiously conservative nations, followed a campaign by human-rights groups to have the kingdom’s male athletes banned from the games over its refusal to allow women to compete.
The move means that television viewers in Saudi Arabia—where girls’ sports and gym are effectively banned in public schools—will see Saudi women openly competing in sports at the London Olympics before mixed audiences of men and women.
“They’ll be role models for girls,” said Eman al-Nafjan, a Saudi educator, writer and blogger in Riyadh. “There are a lot of girls who do love to play sports in Saudi Arabia.…They do actually love to play. But it’s very hard. There are no facilities for them.”
“Just the fact that the Olympics committee is pressuring Saudi Arabia will get the dialogue going,” on easing prohibitions on gyms and sports and physical education for Saudi women and girls, Ms. Nafjan added.
The breakthrough came after what International Olympic Committee officials said were months of negotiations with Saudi Arabia’s Olympic committee, and after months of conflicting public statements from Saudi officials as to whether the kingdom would send women athletes to London.
In fact, the pressure on the Saudi’s to send women athletes came also from Muslim groups, as Ani Zonneveld of Progressive Muslims reported in her article No women, no play
Friday marked the official start of the 2012 Summer Olympics where, for the first time in history, women from the Muslim nations of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Brunei were allowed to compete. The decision was made despite internal opposition from religious authorities, and was the result of unwavering support and pressure from many human rights organizations—in particular, Muslim organizations calling out the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for its hypocrisy.
... As of a few weeks ago, Saudi Arabia was allowed by the IOC to join in the Olympic Games while being the only country that did not allow female athletes to participate. This oversight by the IOC sparked the creation of a Muslim-based initiative out of Washington D.C. called No Women No Play, which played an important role in bringing together the diverse voices who believe Saudi Arabia should be expelled for violating the IOC Charter and human rights.
The “No Women No Play” statement (made by Muslims) said in part: “One of the tenets of Islam is to want for our brothers and sisters what we want for ourselves. In that spirit, we take issue of Saudi Arabia’s practice of discriminating against its women’s athletes. We call on the President of the International Olympic Committee Mr. Jacques Rogge, to stay true to the precepts of the IOC Charter by barring Saudi Arabia from the Olympic Games until it ends its practice of prohibiting Saudi women from competing.”
As to pressuring the IOC for a concession on hijabs, that makes no sense. The Saudi’s had already make it clear that any female participants in any event would be expected to wear hijab. Shaherkani was invited by the IOC to participate, and they already knew that. No one said anything about hijab not being allowed specifically for the Judo competition until after she arrived at the Olympics. At that point it became an issue. Sarah Attar, the other Saudi woman competing in the 800 meter race wore her hijab with no questions asked. And, many other Muslim women competitors from many countries wore hijabs with no problems. This included the Iranian women’s national football team, and Fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad, who will become the first person to represent the US at the Olympics wearing a hijab.
And, Spencer’s closing argument puts all of the blame for having a participant who was not as experienced as the other participants, on the Saudi’s. Since it was the IOC who specifically invited her, it is impossible to see how her participation was to reinforce Islamic supremacism.
The truth is that the Saudi women who are participating for the first time in the Olympics are bravely standing against the restrictive cultural norms in Saudi that pressured them not to compete. The Saudi’s only gave in to allowing the women to compete after intense pressure.
Spencer, and the rest of the Islamophobia echo chamber are stark raving mad! They see Jihad everywhere and in almost all cases it doesn’t exist except in their fevered Islamophobic brains. Here are just a few ridiculous claims about nonsensical Muslim plots:
An Eid Celebration for Muslim Special Needs Kids was described as a “stealth jihad”. A children’s page in a newspaper focusing on Eid was described as a toxic propaganda plot. Joel Hinrichs (a Christian) had a beard and had walked through the parking lot of a campus mosque thus proving that his crime was an example of sudden jihad syndrome. The awful April 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech by a Korean student was also called Islamic jihad because Cho’s father had once worked in Saudi Arabia (before he was married and before Cho was born). A Muslim doctor had a heart attack and died at the wheel of his car which then crashed into a shopping mall and this was described as “vehicular jihad”. A Muslim cab driver objected to what he considered pornographic ads on the roof of his cab, and that became a stealth-jihad plot to impose Sharia on America. Any Muslim who has sued an employer for violation of their rights under the EEOC is engaged in employment jihad, or litigation jihad. Muslim environmentalists are said to be actually engaged in “civilizational jihad”. A cartoon series “The 99” aimed at young Muslims was described as “cultural jihad”. The victims of the terrorist attack of 9/11 included Muslims, they were accused of dying as martyrs in an act of jihad.
The Islamophobes have uncovered countless examples of “shocking” Muslim jihad plots. They have uncovered: bumper sticker jihad, Thanksgiving turkey jihad, an incredible paisley scarf jihad, marriage to important men jihad, spit jihad, fashion jihad, spelling bee jihad, rape jihad, defacing dollar bills jihad, population jihad, creeping Sharia jihad, mosque building jihad, terror baby jihad, “creeping Sharia” jihad, pedophilia jihad, bus driver prayer jihad, forehead bruise jihad, postage stamp jihad, soup jihad, banning alcohol jihad, fake hate crimes jihad, piggy bank jihad, tv reality series jihad, handshake jihad, prom jihad, interfaith jihad, Arabic language jihad, public school jihad, religious accommodation jihad, Crescent moon jihad, Christmas tree tax jihad, oath of office jihad, immigration jihad, community fundraiser jihad. Christina Abraham (a Muslim) has a name that is not recognizably Muslim enough and so we have stealth name jihad.
There is a reason that many, even outside of the Muslim community see such demonization of Muslims as Islamophobic. There is a reason that the ADL has stated that Brigitte Gabriel’s Act for America, Pamela Geller & Robert Spencer’s Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), David Yerushalmi’s Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE) are “groups that promote an extreme anti-Muslim agenda”. There is a reason that The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated SIOA as a hate group, and that they are featured in the SPLC reports Jihad Against Islam and The Anti-Muslim Inner Circle. There is a reason that Geller and Spencer are featured prominently in the Center for American Progress “Fear Inc.” report on the Islamophobia network in America. There is a reason that Geller is 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 Geller is 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 they are featured (with extensive backgrounder articles) in our TAM Who’s Who of the Anti-Muslim/Anti-Arab/Islamophobia Industry. There is a reason that these individuals are featured in just about every legitimate report on Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred.
These people consistently promote the what everyone “knows” lies about Islam and Muslims. They generalize specific incidents to reflect on all Muslims or all of Islam. When they are caught in the act of making up or distorting claims they engage in devious methods to attempt to conceal the evidence.
The claim that “truth tellers” are being accused of Islamophobia for no reason other than their legitimate concerns about real issues and that in fact there is not even such a thing as Islamophobia is nonsense. The further claim that the fact that there are fewer hate crimes against Muslims than against Jews also proves that Islamophobia doesn’t exist is more nonsense.
The reason that this is so obvious to so many is that rational people can tell the difference between legitimate concerns and bigoted stereotypes. The Islamophobia of these folks is very real, and it is also strikingly similar to a previous generations’ anti-Semitism.