Robert Spencer and TAM, the site that cannot be mentioned - update 8/21/13

Robert Spencer and TAM, the site that cannot be mentioned

by Sheila Musaji


Today, Robert Spencer posted another article with an impossibly long title -  Hamas-linked CAIR leader warns Muslims to stay away from Robert Spencer debates with Muslim leaders; Muslim site says Muslim debater will lose.  Spencer has three primary objections in this article.

1.  Spencer is objecting to an article by Mark Hicks in the Detroit News

Controversial speaker planned at symposium on Islam in Ypsilanti for “smearing” him and for calling him “anti-Muslim” which Spencer says is like calling a foe of the Nazis “anti-German.”

Mark Hicks is in good company, he joins a long list of non-Muslims who accept Muslims as equal citizens and participants in American society, and who have been attacked by Spencer and his cohorts. See The Islamophobic Attempt to Marginalize American Muslim Civic Participation for this lengthy list. 

Here is some information from a much longer collection of evidence which should make it clear that Mark Hicks use of the term anti-Muslim is NOT a smear but an accurate description:

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

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

When Islamophobes are caught in the act of making up or distorting claims they engage in devious methods to attempt to conceal the evidence. 

Islamophobes do not understand freedom of speech or that freedom of speech does not include freedom from condemnation of that speech and they are quick to call for censorship and repression of speech they don’t like.

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 these individuals are featured in the SPLC reports Jihad Against Islam and The Anti-Muslim Inner Circle.  There is a reason that these individuals and organizations are featured prominently in: — the Center for American Progress reports “Fear Inc.” on the Islamophobia network in America and Understanding Sharia Law: Conservatives skewed interpretation needs debunking. — the People for the American Way Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism.  — the NYCLU report Religious Freedom Under Attack:  The Rise of Anti-Mosque Activities in New York State.  — the Political Research Associates report Manufacturing the Muslim menace: Private firms, public servants, and the threat to rights and security.  — The ACLU report Nothing to Fear: Debunking the Mythical “Sharia Threat” to Our Judicial System — in The American Muslim TAM Who’s Who of the Anti-Muslim/Anti-Arab/Islamophobia Industry.   There is a reason that the SIOA’s trademark patent was denied by the U.S. government due to its anti-Muslim nature.   There is a reason that these individuals and organizations are featured in just about every legitimate report on Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred. 

See Resources for dealing with Islamophobes for many more reasons that these people cannot be trusted.

Robert Spencer also said in response to this same article by Mark Hicks (emphasis mine):  Then comes the British ban, with no mention of the fact that the British government banned me from entering for fear that Muslims would become violent if I entered—in other words, because they were kowtowing to violent intimidation. And “anti-Muslim” again—which, again, is like calling a foe of the Nazis “anti-German.”

Spencer’s partner Pamela Geller said in response to a Fox News report discussing the upcoming debate: ...  his description of British ban is a lie.The Home Secretary excluded us because our words might “justify terrorist violence.” So that is the recognition and sanction of Islamic violence.

Nonsense!  In the articles Britain should ban Geller & Spencer, and deport Al-Arefe & Al-Habib, and Pamela Geller is confused about what constitutes lies, lies, lies!, the entire history of the ban were laid out.  These articles discussed the charges and counter charges, and provided evidence and sources.

Here is the full text of the letter from the British Home Office (emphasis mine) informing Spencer and Geller that they are banned from entering Great Britain.  A copy of this letter was published by Pamela Geller on Atlas Shrugs:

I am writing to inform you about the British government’s measures for excluding or deporting extremists under the Unacceptable Behaviour policy. The list of unacceptable behaviours covers any non-UK national whether in the UK or abroad who uses any means or medium including:

•writing, producing, publishing or distributing material,
•public speaking including preaching
•running a website
•using a position of responsibility such as a teacher, community or youth leader
to express views that:
•foment or justify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliegs,
•seek to provoke others to terrorist acts,
•foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts,
•foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

The list is indicative and not exhaustive.

The Home Secretary has considered whether, in light of this list, you should be excluded from the UK. After careful consideration on 25 June 2013 she personally directed that you should be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that your presence here is not conducive to the public good. The Home Secretary has reached this decision because you have brought yourself within the scope of the list of unacceptable behaviours by making statements that may foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

The Home Secretary notes that you are a prolific blogger, author, political activist and commentator.  You co-founded Stop Islamization of America, an organization described as an anti-Muslim hate group.  You also operate a number of websites including Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs.

You are reported to have stated the following:

“Al-Qaeda is a manifestation of devout Islam…it is Islam.”

* “If the Jew dies, the Muslims will die as well:” their survival depends on their constant jihad, because without it they will lose the meaning and purpose of their existence.”

The Home Secretary considers that should you be allowed to enter the UK you would continue to espouse such views.  In doing so, you would be committing listed behaviours and would therefore be behaving in a way that is not conducive to the public good.

You are therefore instructed not to travel to the UK as you will be refused admission on arrival.  Although there is no statutory right of appeal against the Home Secretary’s decision,  this decision is reviewed every 3 to 5 years.

In accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 the Home Office treats all personal information in confidence.  However, such information may be disclosed to other government departments, agencies, local authorities, the police, foreign governments and other bodies for immigration purposes or to enable them to perform their functions.

Note:  Spencer’s letter is the same as Geller’s but includes a different quote.  It was posted by Spencer on his Jihad Watch site:

You are reported to have stated the following:

”...it [Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society because media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.”

Nowhere does this say anything about “fear that Muslims would become violent”, nothing that backs up Spencer and Geller’s claims.  Since the purpose of the planned visit to Britain by Spencer and Geller was to participate with the EDL in an event, it is as likely that EDL hoodlums would be the source of any possible inter-community violence.

What “violent intimidation” was the British Government “kowtowing to”?  Could it have been the plea from Tony Lloyd, Greater Manchester’s Police and Crime Commissioner, was it the article by the editor of the Manchester Gazette?

2.  Spencer is objecting to a quote in that article from Dawud Walid of CAIR-MI

“Dawud Walid, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations – Michigan, said he supported Spencer’s free speech rights but urged Muslims to avoid the event, saying the man’s views could provoke ‘animosity and enmity.’ ‘That’s not what we should be embracing coming out of Ramadan.’”  Spencer’s take on this comment is:

“So here I am going up against two Muslim spokesmen in debate, and he tells Muslims to stay away. Why? Wouldn’t he and other Detroit-area Muslims want to watch the spectacle of a couple of righteous Muslims shining the light of truth upon my manifest falsehoods?”

Since, contrary to Robert Spencer’s views, Muslims really are NOT the Borg, I don’t know what reasons Dawud Walid had for his statement (although I agree with him).  Based on a recent incident in Tennessee involving Robert Spencer (and his partner Pamela Geller), and on numerous other incidents, I would have to say that it is reasonable to assume that Spencer’s views could provoke ‘animosity and enmity.’  In fact, that is an understatement.

That possibility is even more likely when we consider that Al Kresta, CEO of Ave Maria Communications said: When this conference is over, Christians and Muslims won’t be holding hands and singing Kumbayah. Everyone who participates in this frank, no holds barred discussion, however, will be thankful for free speech and a civil society which permits people with irreconcilable differences to understand if not agree with one another.”

Pamela Geller weighed in  She says about Dawud Walid’s comment “Robert Spencer is scheduled to appear, and the usual suspects are out for blood. Hamas-CAIR shrieked, “That’s not what we should be embracing coming out of Ramadan.”   Actually, Pamela Geller is the one who shrieks so often that there is a Pamela Geller Shrieking Harpy Rant Generator.

As to referring to Dawud Walid as a “Hamas-linked CAIR leader”, this is a tiresome smear.  All Muslim and Arab organizations and individuals are regularly connected to the infamous Muslim Brotherhood document or the unindicted co-conspirator label, or accused of not condemning Hamas, Hamas linked, etc. 

As Ingrid Mattson pointed out in the article Six Degrees of Terrorism:  the Internet, Islam and Islamophobia

...  The most common technique special interest groups use to undermine the credibility of American Muslim and Arab intellectuals, academics and religious leaders is to play the “linking game”.  Like the trivia game “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon”, the attempt to link all prominent American Muslims and American Muslim organizations to militant-extremist, Wahhabi or Islamic terrorist organizations and agendas is a game that yields no meaningful results.  Further, both games allow the unscientific practice of both forward and back linking in order to connect unrelated individuals.  This technique makes it possible to show a “link” between virtually any two individuals in the world. 

Let me give an example:  Adolf Hitler was a great admirer of the anti-Semitic German musician Richard Wagner to the extent that Wagner’s original scores kept him company in the bunker in which he killed himself.  For his part, one of Wagner’s earliest and foundational influences was Ludwig van Beethoven.  Now, who was one of the twentieth-century’s most influential conductors of Beethoven’s music?  None other than Leonard Bernstein!. With the linking game, we have just been able to show an ideological connection between the twentieth-century’s most vicious enemy of the Jewish people, Adolf Hitler,  and one of the twentieth century’s most accomplished and beloved Jewish composers and friends of Israel Leonard Bernstein. 

To make such a link is revolting, and that is how I feel when there is an attempt to link me and other Muslim scholars and leaders who have proven their commitment to academic excellence and ethical principles to terrorist or extremist militant organizations and ideology.  In a desperate attempt to undermine prominent American Muslims, some “experts” don’t even bother to go to the trouble of looking for links.  Instead, these individuals place the name of a scholar like Khaled Abou El Fadl within an article in which they mention various terrorists, militant groups or opponents of the United States like Osama Bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini.  The result they are aiming for is to create a negative association that will last long after the article has been read.  ...

 

3.  Spencer is objecting to an updated article on The American Muslim (TAM)

The American Muslim Communities’ “Useful Idiots” in which I explain clearly my reasons for believing that such debates in general are counter-productive and that this debate in particular is likely to be a mistake.

It is very interesting that Spencer does not name the source other than an unspecified “Muslim site”, does not name me, and does not provide a link to my article.  Spencer says:

In a similar vein, a Muslim site (granted, one that has never been known for its truth or honesty) brands one of the Muslim spokesmen I am set to debate tomorrow, Shadid Lewis, a “Useful Idiot” and laments: “He will certainly be in over his head, and this ‘featured debate’ will simply be used as an opportunity to humiliate the American Muslim community. Shadid Lewis may mean well, but participating in this very public event without the tools to deal with someone like Robert Spencer is at the very least unwise.” In other words, Lewis is going to lose, and he shouldn’t have agreed to the debate in the first place.

Spencer quotes me accurately, but incompletely.  Here is what I actually said about this particular debate in that article:

...  Mustafa Akyol is very capable of discussing the topic of religious liberty (You can view his TED Talk on Faith versus tradition in Islam here), however I can’t understand why he would even consider involving himself with such an event, and such individuals.  Right Wing Watch has an entire series of articles on Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center, and his views here.  He was one of those who attacked Debbie Almontaser and the Khalil Gibran Academy.  He called the school “a Trojan horse” for “homegrown terrorists”. 

However, as the press release clearly states, the The featured debate will be Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch.org facing off against Shadid Lewis, regional director of the Muslim Debate Initiative in the US, on the question “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”

Spencer’s article announcing this “debate” says that he is debating Muslim scholars.   Ave Maria’s Kresta posts an article saying that “renowned experts on Islam from around the world come to MI discuss and debate the question, “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”

Who is Shadid Lewis, and what is the Muslim Debate Initiative?  I had never heard of either before the announcement of this event.

I did find two MDI websites here and here but they don’t offer much information.  In just going through the sites, it seems as if there are no more than 10 people contributing articles or engaging in debates.  There are no biographies for any of them.  Their about section doesn’t say when they were founded.  

Shadid Lewis has a series of debates and lectures on YouTube.  The Michigan Catholic reported thatLewis, who has participated in similar debates before, said he agreed to participate to “put forward the Muslim perspective in an academic and intellectual manner and address these controversial issues.” While he expected a “heated debate” with Spencer, Lewis also expressed hope that the audience would come away with a better understanding of the key issues. “My intention is help the audience get a better understanding of what Islam is really about and just let them see that the media is only giving attention to those who are doing negative things,” he said.  I could not find a bio for Shadid Lewis anywhere.  Based on looking at a few articles Shadid Lewis posted on MDI and watching a few of his YouTube videos, he is a young convert, who is not an academic, and certainly not a “Muslim scholar”.

He will certainly be in over his head, and this “featured debate” will simply be used as an opportunity to humiliate the American Muslim community.  Shadid Lewis may mean well, but participating in this very public event without the tools to deal with someone like Robert Spencer is at the very least unwise.  And, the fact that Spencer, Kresta, Ave Maria, et al are framing this as a debate between scholars, when that is clearly not the case makes it clear that they have an agenda.

As I said at the beginning of this article - A Muslim “useful idiot” is an individual who may believe that they are being a force for good, but who are either naive or a publicity seeker whose actions and words actually give support to the cause of the Islamophobes.

Ave Maria Radio is advertising that it “will bring together renowned experts on Islam from around the world to discuss and debate the question, “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”  They clearly state in their press release that

The featured debate will be Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch.org facing off against Shadid Lewis, regional director of the Muslim Debate Initiative in the US, on the question “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”

Muslim columnist for the Turkish News Mustafa Akyol will debate Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center on “Can Islam Support Religious Liberty?”

So, this is false advertising.  Shadid Lewis IS NOT a “renowned expert on Islam”.  He is the only Muslim listed as being involved in the debate with Robert Spencer.  According to their press release Mustafa Akyol is debating another individual on a different topic.  Akyol is a historian and a journalist, but he is NOT a “renowned scholar of Islam”, and he is not listed as being involved in the debate with Robert Spencer.  There are no other Muslims listed anywhere on their press release.  Who are these “renowned experts on Islam” that are coming in from all over the world?

The only person in all of this claiming to be a “renowned scholar of Islam” is Robert Spencer, and that claim is disputed by Muslims here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here etc.

Why is it that Robert Spencer is so careful to avoid mentioning TAM?  Spencer is well aware that over the years I have written hundreds of articles exposing his hateful activities, associations, and false claims — in print.  Type Robert Spencer into the TAM search engine and 294 articles will come up.  I might be wrong, but my best guess is that Spencer doesn’t mention me, or TAM because he knows that I am well able to counter his claims in print.


UPDATE 1:

I have just been made aware that Spencer also objected to an article by Michael Sean Winters in the National Catholic Reporter Who Should Be Barred From Catholic Forums?.

  Spencer has the same objections to this article.  He claims that calling Spencer anti-Muslim “is the ultimate smear term”, and “like calling an opponent of the Nazis “anti-German.”  Spencer says: “Michael Sean Winters’s vicious little libel here, he doesn’t quote even one of my “vile anti-Muslim pronouncements” that “approach the level of bigotry we associate with Holocaust denial.” He doesn’t, because he can’t, because what I actually say is nothing like his caricature.” 

In case Michael Sean Winters needs hateful quotes by Robert Spencer, he can find them here,  and here,  and here, and here, and here, and here.  And, here are just a few of those quotes:

“Islam constitutes a threat to the world at large.”  Robert Spencer, AFDI, SIOA, SION

When Shi’ite Muslims were persecuted by Sunnis, they developed the doctrine of taqiyya, or concealment: They could lie about what they believed, denying aspects of their faith that were offensive to Sunnis…Closely related to this is the doctrine of kitman, or mental reservation, which is telling the truth, but not the whole truth, with an intention to mislead…Remember that the next time you see a Muslim spokesman on television professing his friendship with non-Muslim Americans and his loyalty to the United States. Of course, he may be telling the truth–but he may not be telling the whole truth or he may be just lying.  Robert Spencer, AFDI, SIOA, SION

There are “many elements of traditional and mainstream Islam that are at variance with our system of government, our Constitution, and our entire way of life.”  Robert Spencer, AFDI, SIOA, SION

“There is no reliable way to distinguish a “moderate” Muslim who rejects the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism from a “radical” Muslim who holds such ideas, even if he isn’t acting upon them at the moment.”  Robert Spencer, AFDI, SIOA, SION

“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.” Robert Spencer,AFDI, SIOA, SION  

“There is no distinction in the American Muslim community between peaceful Muslims and jihadists.” Robert Spencer, AFDI, SIOA, SION

“(Islam) is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers.”  Robert Spencer, AFDI, SIOA, SION

As to the background on Spencer’s talks being cancelled by Bishops Robert McManus of Worcester, Massachusetts and Jaime Soto of Sacramento, California - see the TAM article Islamophobes Spencer & Geller are confused about who are the “brownshirts” for a detailed background including responses to previously made claims by Robert Spencer now being repeated in this latest article.

Spencer raises the issue of the books he has written on Islam and says “Just recently the National Catholic Register, the Reporter’s saner competitor, called me “perhaps the foremost Catholic expert on Islam in our country.”  The same TAM article Islamophobes Spencer & Geller are confused about who are the “brownshirts” discusses that at length, as this particular article and praise is being used by Robert Spencer as some sort of “proof” that those who have called him “anti-Muslim” are wrong. .


UPDATE 2:  I was just sent a link to an article on The Catholic News Agency.  That article reports that

Citing the need for public dialogue, Catholic radio host Al Kresta defended Islamic scholar Shadid Lewis’ invite to controversial critic Robert Spencer to a symposium and debate sponsored by Ave Maria Radio.

“It was Shadid Lewis of the Muslim Debate Initiative who called for a public debate with Spencer,” Kresta said Aug. 7, adding that he “was disappointed that Robert Spencer’s participation was treated as a sign of ill will.”  ...

As stated numerous times, Shadid Lewis is NOT an Islamic scholar.  And, if in fact he is the one who initiated this debate, that says a lot about his common sense.  There is more on Shadid Lewis in the article The Muslim Communities’ Useful Idiots.

UPDATE 8/13/2013 — The discussion surrounding this debate became so lengthy that it is now all included in the article Robert Spencer vs Shadid Lewis Debate.  It is another object lesson on why getting involved in debates with committed Islamophobes, especially those like Robert Spencer who make their living spreading anti-Muslim propaganda is unwise.


UPDATE 8/21/2013

Robert Spencer is now outraged that the Detroit News didn’t print his full rebuttal piece (To Dawud Walid’s blog article Freedom of Speech does not mean accepting voices of incivility as an op ed. 

Spencer posted another “self-defense” article and repeats all the same accusations, this time about the Detroit News Detroit News buries inconvenient truths, carries water for Hamas-linked CAIR.  Spencer attacks Dawud Walid for making “defamatory charges” and for claiming ” that I purvey “hate speech” (without a single example, of course) — Walid accuses me of fomenting “ethnic and religious intolerance.” But he doesn’t offer a single example of my supposed “bigotry” and “hate speech.” He doesn’t because he can’t: I don’t engage in any “hate speech” or “ethnic and religious intolerance.”

I have just sent letters to James David Dickson .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and Henry Payne .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) of the Detroit News thanking them for their journalistic integrity, and providing them with documentation refuting Spencer’s arguments. 

Please take a moment and send an email of support to Mr. Dickson and Mr. Payne.

The voices of reason and mutual respect must prevail over the voices of bigotry.


**************

RESOURCES FOR DEALING WITH ISLAMOPHOBIA SUMMARY

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

The Islamophobia of these folks is very real, it is also strikingly similar to a previous generations’ anti-Semitism, and it has predictable consequences.   The reason that this is so obvious to so many is that rational people can tell the difference between legitimate concerns and bigoted stereotypes.

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

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

These individuals and organizations consistently promote the false what everyone “knows” lies about Islam and Muslims (including distorting the meaning of Qur’anic verses, and distorting the meaning of Islamic terms such as taqiyya, jihad, sharia, etc.).  Islamophobes falsely claim to see “JIHAD” PLOTS everywhere, particularly where they don’t exist.   They, like Muslim extremists, don’t understand the true meaning of the term jihad.  The Islamophobes have uncovered countless examples of “shocking”, non-existent Muslim jihad plots.

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.  Leon Alphans Traille, Jr., the Arlington, Virginia Mall Bomber was accused of possible “sudden jihad syndrome” just because he had a beard, obviously, a case of beard jihad.     Tyler Brehm who carried out the Hollywood shooting jihad was accused of “sudden jihad syndrome” because he shouted something that one witness from the Philippines said he might have shouted “Allahu Akbar”.  This report was not backed up by any other witnesses.  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. Muslims hoped to open a Muslim hospital in the U.S. and that was called hospital jihad.

The Islamophobes have uncovered countless examples of “shocking” Muslim jihad plots.  They have uncovered:

bumper sticker jihadThanksgiving turkey jihadpaisley scarf jihadmarriage to important men jihadspit jihad —  fashion jihadspelling bee jihadrape jihaddefacing dollar bills jihadpopulation jihadcreeping Sharia jihad —  mosque building jihadterror baby jihad“creeping Sharia” jihadpedophilia jihadbus driver prayer jihadforehead bruise jihadpostage stamp jihadsoup jihad —  banning alcohol jihadfake hate crimes jihadpiggy bank jihadtv reality series jihadhandshake jihadprom jihadinterfaith jihadArabic language jihadpublic school jihadreligious accommodation jihadCrescent moon jihadChristmas tree tax jihadoath of office jihadimmigration jihad community fundraiser jihadpublic school/madrassa jihadpost office jihadfood jihadpyramid jihadcrucifixion jihad in Egyptfireworks jihadcomputer donation jihadcivic participation jihadOlympic “judo” jihadstealth name jihadpre-violent jihadLove jihadfashion jihad 2#MyJihad ad jihadtalk show host jihadart museum jihadHalloween jihadDNC Muslim Prayer Jihadcat crucifixion jihad in GhanaScottish Muslim women’s stealth jihadanti-democracy jihadun-neighborly Musims in Paris jihadjihad on Christopher ColumbusIranian smallpox jihadMuslim Christmas grinch jihad#MyJihad twitter jihadMuslim takeover of National Parks jihad

 

Nothing is too trivial to escape the eagle eyes of these “defenders of Western civilization” against devious Muslim stealth jihad plots.  Christina Abraham (a Muslim) has a name that is not recognizably Muslim enough and so we have stealth name jihad. And, if a Muslim somewhere is not doing anything at all suspicious, then they are engaged in pre-violent jihad.

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

When Islamophobes are caught in the act of making up or distorting claims they engage in devious methods to attempt to conceal the evidence. 

Islamophobes do not understand freedom of speech or that freedom of speech does not include freedom from condemnation of that speech and they are quick to call for censorship and repression of speech they don’t like.

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 these individuals are featured in the SPLC reports Jihad Against Islam and The Anti-Muslim Inner Circle.  There is a reason that these individuals and organizations are featured prominently in: — the Center for American Progress reports “Fear Inc.” on the Islamophobia network in America and Understanding Sharia Law: Conservatives skewed interpretation needs debunking. — the People for the American Way Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism.  — the NYCLU report Religious Freedom Under Attack:  The Rise of Anti-Mosque Activities in New York State.  — the Political Research Associates report Manufacturing the Muslim menace: Private firms, public servants, and the threat to rights and security.  — The ACLU report Nothing to Fear: Debunking the Mythical “Sharia Threat” to Our Judicial System — in The American Muslim TAM Who’s Who of the Anti-Muslim/Anti-Arab/Islamophobia Industry.   There is a reason that the SIOA’s trademark patent was denied by the U.S. government due to its anti-Muslim nature.   There is a reason that these individuals and organizations are featured in just about every legitimate report on Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred. 

See Resources for dealing with Islamophobes for many more reasons that these people cannot be trusted.



Sheila Musaji is the founding editor of The American Muslim (TAM), published since 1989.  Sheila received the Council on American-Islamic Relations 2007 Islamic Community Service Award for Journalism,  and the Loonwatch Anti-Loons of 2011: Profiles in Courage Award for her work in fighting Islamophobia.  Sheila was selected for inclusion in the 2012 edition of The Muslim 500: The World’s 500 Most Influential Muslims published since 2009 by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre in Amman, Jordan.    Biography  You can follow her on twitter @sheilamusaji ( https://twitter.com/SheilaMusaji )

 

Originally posted 8/9/2013


Google