Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Exposing the infrastructure of anti-Muslim hate
By Frankie Martin
The dismissal of Juan Williams' from NPR once again exposes the difficulty America is having discussing Islam in a cool or rational manner. Williams' exchange with Bill O'Reilly featured much of the usual ignorance, with both agreeing that, although undefined "good Muslims" do exist, all Muslims must be considered potential soldiers in an Islamic war against America. This ludicrous belief is not only a distortion of reality, but also poses a serious threat to the well-being and security of the United States. In adopting this position, Williams and O'Reilly were reflecting the climate of hatred against Muslims that is fueled by prejudice and lack of knowledge.
The controversy comes in the context of the conflict around the Islamic center near Ground Zero, Pastor Terry Jones' desire to burn the Quran, a growing belief that sharia law is being imposed on America by Muslims, and increasing attacks on mosques in the United States. The interminable wars in Muslim countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the upcoming midterm elections, in which campaigns have employed heavy doses of anti-Muslim bile, also contribute to the darkening storm.
Today's high anti-Muslim antipathy is the latest wave of xenophobia in a nation that has seen many, especially when a threat was perceived to the country. While current anti-Islamic voices, like the hatemongers of previous eras, frequently attempt to co-opt the Founding Fathers' ideals to support their agenda, there can be no reconciling the vision of a pluralistic nation with the spewing of hate against a particular ethnic or religious group, in this case Muslims. While the debate stirred by these hateful voices is on one level about Islam and how to depict and understand it, it is also about the very definition of American identity.
Much of this bigotry and misinformation can be traced directly to what I am calling the infrastructure of hate, an industry which connects venomous anti-Islamic blogs, wealthy donors, powerful think tanks, and influential media commentators, journalists, and politicians. The most visible component of the infrastructure is the hate blogs, which have recently grown exponentially in number, influence, and stature.
From my position as a research fellow working with American University's Chair of Islamic Studies, Professor Akbar Ahmed, I have watched with horror as the hate blogs have begun to diffuse from their online cesspool to infect mainstream media, political rhetoric, and the larger discussion about Islam in America. There are hundreds, if not thousands of such blogs on the Internet.
To the hate bloggers, the world's 1.5 billion Muslims represent an insidious, inherently violent force seeking to enslave the United States by overthrowing the government and jettisoning the Constitution in favor of sharia law. Frequently the bloggers include caveats such as claiming that they are only talking about "Islamists," "Islamofascists," or those supporting "sharia," but by tying terrorism explicitly to the Prophet Muhammad and to the Quran, they equate it with Islam. Under this simplistic, warped logic, every Muslim is a potential, if not-fully formed, terrorist and every one of America's seven million Muslims a potentially treasonous enemy. Such crass, demonizing generalizations constitute hate speech.
I will focus on one such blog post to illustrate how the infrastructure of hate works, and how easily lies and slander can spread rapidly to achieve influence.
Last month, Laura Rubenfeld, an analyst at the Investigative Project on Terrorism headed by Steven Emerson, published an article in Pajamas Media tiitled "No, Professor Ahmed, the Founders Were Not So Fond of Islam." In it, Rubenfeld attacks Professor Akbar Ahmed, who has been speaking in the media about his new book Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam, for which he traveled to over 100 mosques in 75 U.S. cities. I participated in this study with Ahmed, traversing the country during fieldwork and spending weeks in the library researching the history of Islam in America. Since Ahmed's media statements reflect the contents of the book, Rubenfeld not only impugns the scholarship of Ahmed, whom the BBC calls the "world's leading authority on contemporary Islam," but also myself and the other four researchers who spent several years working on this project, three of whom are continuing on to PhD programs.
Ahmed's main argument in these media appearances was that Americans should welcome Muslims as full citizens as the Founding Fathers did, and quoted their views on Islam, which Rubenfeld found intolerable. As such, her article is a piece of pseudo-scholarship rife with distortion, slander, omission, and outright lies.
Rubenfeld endeavors to demonstrate that the Founding Fathers actually hated Islam, recognizing it for the threatening, destructive force she believes it to be. She begins by denying Ahmed's assertion that John Adams called the Prophet Muhammad a great truth seeker, saying that he "said absolutely nothing of the kind." This claim is false. To Adams, Prophet Muhammad was one of the world's "sober inquirers after truth" alongside such figures as Confucius and Socrates. For Prophet Muhammad and other great sages of history, Adams wrote, the "happiness of man, as well as his dignity, consists in virtue." Adams believed that Americans should consider the example of these sages to create a society based on virtue and happiness rather than "fear," which he called the "foundation of most governments."
After calling Ahmed a liar for citing the above passage, Rubenfeld quotes a letter Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in which he calls the Prophet Muhammad "a military fanatic." She again fails to put the statement in context. In the letter, Adams cited Prophet Muhammad in the context of a discussion on Napoleon, whom he called a "fanatic," not in a religious sense but meaning that he relied on the military as a source of his might: "Napoleon is a military fanatic like Achilles, Alexander, Caesar, Mahomet, Zingis, Kouli, Charles XII. The maxim and principle of all of them was the same. 'Jura negat sibi lata, nihil non arrogat armis (He denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms).'" Adams is not singling out the Prophet as some kind of religious militant, as Rubenfeld implies, but comparing the Prophet to Napoleon in including him in a list of the most famous and brilliant military geniuses in history. For Adams, Prophet Muhammad existed in two categories, that of great religious sage and also that of head of state and military commander, the only figure to feature in both. While Adams valued the example of the Prophet as religious sage in imagining the United States, he hoped that the era of the military general as head of state might give way to democracy and usher in a new age in world history. The letter is still loaded with nuance, such as when Adams wonders if Napoleon's ascendency in France is not as "legitimate and authentic" in the context of that nation as "the election of Washington to the command of our army or to the chair of State?" We can agree or disagree with Adams' analysis, but Rubenfeld insults him by so disingenuously distorting the meaning of what he has written.
Rubenfeld's various other assertions are laughable, such as her attempt to prove Adams' unfavorable view of Islam by quoting the Orientalist-style forward from his copy of the Quran. Yes, she cites a forward Adams did not author as exposing his true feelings about Islam. She also absurdly quotes at length his son John Quincy Adams' critical views of Islam. John Quincy Adams is not a Founding Father and was a child when the nation was being created.
Ahmed's correct contention that Thomas Jefferson hosted the first iftar at the White House is also too much for Rubenfeld, who writes that Jefferson was not holding an iftar but merely being "polite" to the Tunisian ambassador, in whose honor the dinner was given. I would only ask Rubenfeld if she is even aware what an iftar is, as the invitation Jefferson sent to the ambassador stated that the White House dinner was being moved from the customary "half after three" to "precisely at sunset" to accommodate the ambassador's religious obligation. This means that Jefferson scheduled the dinner specially to ensure that the Ramadan fast would be broken at the proper time as mandated by the Quran, which apparently did not satisfy Rubenfeld's iftar requirements.
The most loathsome claim in Rubenfeld's article, however, comes in her discussion of Benjamin Franklin's views of Islam. As with Adams, she completely dismisses Ahmed's assertion that Franklin viewed the Prophet Muhammad as a model of compassion. Instead of quoting Franklin on the compassion of the Prophet, which I have written about here, or his desire to see the head cleric of Istanbul preach Islam to Americans from a Philadelphia pulpit Franklin had funded, she quotes Franklin saying that the Quran commands the "plundering of infidels."
The problem is that this example is from a satirical newspaper article Franklin wrote in support of the abolition movement. Surely Rubenfeld would have known the difference. Or was she hoping that her audience would not? Franklin wrote the article, under an alias, in response to Congressman James Jackson of Georgia, who gave an angry speech in Congress denouncing Franklin for advocating abolition and arguing that the enslavement of blacks is a Christian commandment justified in the Bible. In Franklin's satirical piece, he put Jackson's arguments into the mouth of a fictional North African Muslim, who argues before his equivalent of Congress, the Divan of Algiers, that the Quran commands the enslavement of white Christians. Christians would be happier, safer, and better clothed and lodged as slaves, the fictional Muslim contends, and besides, the economy of Algiers would be devastated if the Christians were freed. Franklin was attempting to get pro-slavery Americans to see the hypocrisy of their position in using their fallacious logic to present an inverted situation in which they were the potential slaves. It is outrageous that Rubenfeld did not mention this context. If Rubenfeld had any intellectual capacity, she would also recognize how relevant this example is to the hate bloggers' contention that Islam is inherently violent because nineteen Muslims attacked the U.S. on 9/11. Would Rubenfeld also argue that Congressman Jackson's Biblical justification means that it is every authentic Christian's duty to enslave blacks?
As abysmal as Rubenfeld's reading of American history is, it would appear unwise for her to take on Islamic history. Yet at the end of the article she darkly and randomly notes that Ahmed is the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, mentions that Ahmed has "written" about Ibn Khaldun, and describes the fourteenth century scholar as a violent Islamic militant seeking to impose a worldwide caliphate. This is risible as Ibn Khaldun was a social scientist widely credited with establishing the discipline of anthropology and the theory of the rise and fall of civilizations, a process he believed had nothing to do with religion. The book Rubenfeld cites as a terrorist text, the Muqaddimah, was named by the famed British historian Arnold Toynbee as "the greatest work ever created by a man of intelligence at any time or anywhere." Even if she is correct in the preposterous contention that Ibn Khaldun was a terrorist, would it make Ahmed one as well for holding an endowed university chair bearing the same name? An elementary school child would be unable to make sense of such an argument: If Tom likes to ride in a banana boat, does this mean that Tom is a banana?
Reflexively and ridiculously slandering any Muslim who conflicts with their worldview as a terrorist is typical of the anti-Islamic hate blogs. In this case, Rubenfeld implies that Ahmed, by identifying him with Ibn Khaldun, is a threat to the security of the U.S. in his presumed desire to wage "violence against non-Muslims as a religious duty, in order to achieve the larger goal of dismantling non-Muslim civilization and imposing an Islamic caliphate." Rubenfeld also raises the possibility that General David Petreaus, whom Ahmed has advised, will be "influenced" by Ahmed's "false teachings," thereby warning Americans that a terrorist may have access to the highest levels of the U.S. military.
Rubenfeld ignores much in her sinister efforts at character assassination. It is doubtful that a terrorist would be honored with an evensong service at the Washington National Cathedral, likened by senior Christian clergymen to figures including Gandhi and Desmond Tutu, or praised by Elie Wiesel, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chief Rabbi of the U.K.--who called Ahmed a "role model" and "one of the great contemporary exponents of Islam, a man I admire as a scholar and cherish as a friend"--or Israel's ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, who thanked Ahmed on behalf of a "deeply appreciative" State of Israel for doing "more than any single individual I know building bridges between Muslims, Jews, [and] Christians." It is also unlikely that the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching would honor such a threat to America as Washington D.C. professor of the year for his work with American students, one of many educational accolades Ahmed has received. Yet none of this matters to Rubenfeld, as it conflicts with the agenda of the hate blogosphere. Ahmed is a Muslim in the media who is saying that Islam is not inherently violent and that Islam and America are compatible. The bigoted bloggers could not permit this. If this kind of defamatory attack could be leveled at such a distinguished, world-renowned scholar, imagine what can be done to Muslims who do not have this background.
Like so many posts, Rubenfeld's article was circulated incestuously amongst the hate bloggers and caught fire online. In addition to its prominent placement on Pajamas Media, Rubenfeld's article was featured on the Jawa Report, Daniel Pipes' Campus Watch, Blazing Cat Fur (the blog which hosted an "Everybody Draw Muhammad" contest), the influential political site Free Republic, Tea Party websites, and other blogs including The West, Islam, and Sharia, Project Shining City, Infidel Blogger's Alliance, Socialism is Not the Answer, the website for America's Independent Party, and too many others to name. It was also featured on the popular Fark.com, which called the article "interesting." Fark is one of the top-100 visited English language websites in the world.
There are numerous comments on many of these websites that hail Rubenfeld as a brilliant scholar and thank her for exposing Ahmed's "lies." "If this lying professor really does teach at an American university," read one comment, "I would hope they reconsider renewing his contract before he pollutes more of our students with his lies." Another further argued that Ahmed "was just following the Koran that instructs Muslims to deceive their enemies (Al-Taqiyya.) [...] If you are not a Muslim (Kuffar) the Koran details how to kill, capture, oppress, etc. the unbeliever." Perhaps the most depressing was from a teacher: "This has now made it into my PUBLIC high school curricula. Long live TRUTH!" The post was widely shared on social networking sites and even featured in a YouTube video.
Some of the blogs that breathlessly featured Rubenfeld's article do not even attempt to conceal their racism. The Jawa Report, for example, proudly describes itself as a "weblog comparing Muslims to Jawas," the "typically short rodent-like" sand-dwellers of Star Wars who are described in the film as "disgusting." A section on the website is entitled "my pet Jawa" implying, (but only satirically, of course!) that Muslims are sub-human creatures suitable to be kept as pets. The Jawa Report also includes pictures of Qurans in toilets, likens Muslim opponents to real-life animals like monkeys and features numerous photos of what its editors call "hot babes" because they are seen as offending the sensibilities of Muslims.
These hate sites are increasingly influencing mainstream media. Virulently anti-Muslim blogger Debbie Schlussel, who openly argues that "we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam," this summer accused the newly crowned Miss USA, an American Muslim of Lebanese descent, of being a Hezbollah agent because her surname was said to be shared by people linked to the organization. The slanderous claim resulted in the CNN.com headline "Miss USA: Muslim Trailblazer or Hezbollah Spy?" The New York Islamic center controversy brought characters like lead opponents Robert Spencer and recent New York Times profile subject Pamela Geller--who has argued that President Barack Obama is the son of Malcolm X--into the living rooms of millions of Americans. Fox News often relies on such bloggers to comment on Islamic issues.
Part of this emerging reliance of mainstream media on the hate bloggers comes from a genuine desire to understand Islam and the threat of terrorism, as often these blogs and commentators discuss material that the mainstream media has not looked into with as much attention or detail. It is hard for me to think of another reason why the New York Times leaned on the Jawa Report, which it described as "anti-jihadi Internet activists," for its investigative coverage of the "Jihad Jane" homegrown terrorism case, or why Esquire, while noting its "unsettling anti-Muslim invective," nevertheless glamorized the website as "laptop James Bonds," "thrill-seeking," and "all-American." Yet it is possible to analyze and understand the threat of terrorism without relying on the bigots. Just as a Ku Klux Klan member would not be asked to advise on issues facing the African American community, responsible people in media and government must keep the bile-spewing anti-Muslim racists away from anything to do with Islam-related subjects.
Government, however, is where such bloggers and commentators have focused a considerable amount of attention in their desire to shape U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Recently, an increasing number of prominent politicians, including members of Congress Michele Bachmann and Pete Hoekstra--the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee--have come out publicly and enthusiastically in support of Frank Gaffney, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and head of a prominent Washington D.C. think tank. Gaffney, who blogs at Andrew Breitbart's Big Peace, recently told CNN viewers he is leading an effort to block the construction of American mosques because they are "seditious" and a "cancer" seeking to "destroy Western civilization from within." With bone-chilling conviction, he asserted that the numbers of American Muslims today are "very small, blessedly. This is the time to stop them." The influence of the anti-Islamic beltway fearmongers could be seen in Newt Gingrich's comparison of American Muslims to Nazis, Tennessee Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey's assertion that he did not believe American Muslims were entitled to religious freedom, and incendiary, terror-inducing ads and rhetoric in political campaigns nationwide, such as Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle's recent warning that Muslims have seized control of two American cities.
I have attempted here to connect some of the dots in the anti-Muslim infrastructure of hate and demonstrate how a blatantly fallacious post like Laura Rubenfeld's can achieve such prominence and influence. Rubenfeld's article has all the hallmarks of the anti-Islamic hate blogs: a breathtaking illiteracy of the discussed subject, ad hominem attacks on a prominent Muslim, a crude insinuation of guilt by association, and a substitution of ideology for scholarship. The exact same process of argument, challenge, and refutation utilized above can be applied to nearly every one of the tidal wave of anti-Islamic hate posts.
Much more investigation needs to be done on how various sections of the infrastructure of hate are funded, but one basic link is discernable in the case study presented here. It is no accident that the think tank which employs Rubenfeld, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, is funded by the Los Angeles-based Fairbrook Foundation, the same group--granted IRS 501(c)(3) status as a nonprofit charity--that funds Pajamas Media, the website which ran Rubenfeld's scurrilous hate post. This clearly indicates that there is another level of connection and coordination not apparent to the public.
In their depiction of Islam, the despicable infrastructure of bloggers, think tanks, murky financial backers, and media outlets use the ignorance of the American public about the religion to their advantage, as it can be difficult for well-meaning Americans to distinguish hate speech from critical views of Muslim governments or organizations. That no mainstream American media commentator picked up the larger, more dangerous implications of Juan Williams and Bill O'Reilly's discussion, for example, is indicative of this reality. The more anti-Islamic hate seeps into the American consciousness, the more likely violence will result from Americans believing it to be their patriotic duty to lash out at Muslim invaders. History shows us that venomous campaigns to demonize a particular religious or ethnic group can have catastrophic consequences.
The vitriolic anti-Islamic voices also help ensure that the actual causes for the problems plaguing the Muslim world--including political, historical, economic, and cultural factors like the turmoil wrought by globalization on traditional societies--are largely ignored by a public still befuddled by Islam nearly a decade after 9/11. Furthermore, the infrastructure's dissemination of hate does no favors for the U.S. troops, diplomats, and aid workers attempting to win "hearts and minds" in Afghanistan and elsewhere, as the toxic blogs are read and circulated widely in the Muslim world. This hate literature endangers American national security by validating and strengthening Al Qaeda's contention that the United States is engaged in a war against Islam which Muslims must resist and avenge.
Even more seriously, bloggers like Rubenfeld represent a grave threat to the United States in their distortions of the ideals of the Founding Fathers, which form the bedrock of American identity. In pumping their poison into the public discourse, the bloggers are attacking the entire foundation of the United States as a pluralistic nation that unambiguously mandates religious freedom.
As someone who believes in the Founding Fathers' vision, I feel a moral compulsion to challenge the forces of hate that are spreading so rapidly. The bloggers' detrimental, bigoted views represent a dangerous rot that needs to be confronted by all of us. This is not an academic or personal exercise, but a debate about the future of the nation. If the bloggers and the infrastructure of hate they are a part of are not challenged, the pluralist America envisioned by the Founding Fathers will be in ever increasing peril.
Frankie Martin is an Ibn Khaldun Chair Research Fellow at American University's School of International Service.
By Frankie Martin |
October 26, 2010; 10:00 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Fight Shahzad's words, as well as his acts |
Next: Pew's religion survey: an attempt to understand faith
Posted by: WMyers | November 1, 2010 1:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
asizk writes:
kafir,
"No I don't take u seriously BUT I have to expose your lies and false claims against Islam and Msilms-because most Americans know little or nothing about Islam except what they hear from Fox news and AIPAC.
It's natural that people fear what they do not know-that is why the American Muslim Community and all Americans of good well-and there are many of them-should team up in a productive human synergy and stand up to the Islamophobes,racists,bigots,zionists and self-self-serving politicians and expose their lies and dismantel their infastructure."
Exactly which lie have you exposed?
Please notice that all this hot air and not in a single post of asizk does he address any ANY issue or point raised. So go ahead and spell out clearly so that no one can miss, what have I said about Islam that is a lie. Now don't disappear as you usually do.
Posted by: AKafir | October 29, 2010 12:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Since when is a 'religion' considered a 'race'. Hmmm.... very bizarre indeed.
Posted by: JKPBoca | October 28, 2010 5:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
kafir,
No I don't take u seriously BUT I have to expose your lies and false claims against Islam and Msilms-because most Americans know little or nothing about Islam except what they hear from Fox news and AIPAC.
It's natural that people fear what they do not know-that is why the American Muslim Community and all Americans of good well-and there are many of them-should team up in a productive human synergy and stand up to the Islamophobes,racists,bigots,zionists and self-self-serving politicians and expose their lies and dismantel their infastructure.
Posted by: asizk | October 28, 2010 5:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This is a long and lazy diatribe, paid for by the Saudi-Wahhabi faction. Hey, Frankie, do you like to be feted by the Saudi royals from time to time?
Posted by: robund | October 28, 2010 12:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Islam is just as peaceful as Christianity and Judaism, if not more so. In one of the hadiths, the Prophet said that "the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr."
There will always be radicals on either side who are close-minded and unwilling to see the good in others. But the rest of us have a duty to remind them that they don't speak for everyone.
Posted by: Abbott2 | October 26, 2010 1:49 PM"
You apparently learned everything you know about Islam from purblind liberal fools at NPR. If you would bother to actually READ THE KORAN, you would discover that every single one of those VERSES ABOUT GOODWILL toward your fellow man is qualified, and APPLIES ONLY TO OTHER MUSLIMS. Infidels, on the other hand deserve only to be exploited, deceived and oppressed, if not enslaved or just slaughtered. These are the REAL teachings of the Koran, if you would only read it.
This degree of ignorance of the enemy at this stage of the war is tantamount to dereliction of duty for any citizen who wields the franchise. Anyone who could make the comment quoted above is too ignorant to vote responsibly.
Posted by: novaculus | October 28, 2010 10:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This article is a poorly researched piece of propaganda. Beginning with a gross mis-characterization of the Founding Fathers attitude toward Islam, the author continues this parade of lies and misinformation in a manner reminiscent of a high-schooler who had learned to conduct Yahoo searches but doesn't actually read the links or bother to attempt to corroborate what he reads in the first two links.
For a smashing deconstruction of this nonsense, I refer readers to one of the very people defamed as a "hater" by the smear-monger who wrote this garbage:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/204639.php
The author is also pimping the old (and insane) notion that a handful of rich old white guys are funding anti-Muslim hate. Who funds the chair held by the author? Why, The very same Saudi Islamists whose vile ideology (it is NOT a religion as we understand religions) underlies every single act of Islamist terror committed around the globe. If anyone is a paid shill, it is the author of this garbage.
I strongly urge readers to do just a small amount of research on their own into the preposterous claims made in this article.
Posted by: novaculus | October 28, 2010 9:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Frankie,you and Prof Ahmed might have more credibility if you mentioned ALL of islam's history with the United States. Including the role of the muslim Barbary pirates.Christopher Hitchens writes about an encounter Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had with a muslim ambassador in London.
But one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to wait upon Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
So we see here that a muslim used the koran to justify jihad against the United States over 200 years ago.I also find it interesting that you along with the OIC seek to shut down free speech about islam.We've been told for the years that the answer to speech that "offends" is more speech.What makes you think islam is above criticism, questioning or even ridicule? If other religions can be criticized or ridiculed why not islam?Why do muslims and their supporters fear free speech?
Posted by: LilannB | October 27, 2010 7:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Asikz writes: "Here u are surfcaing again from your dark cave wearing as usual the garb of a false scholar of Islam. Trust me:No one with any sense takes your rants/biles against Islam seriously.
Why u don't have the courage to show your identity?"
If no one is taking what I say seriously then I am totally wasting my time. That is fine by me, because it is my time to waste. Feel completely free to ignore what I write or say.
I do not need any courage. I do not want to be in any position to need courage. Poor Molly Norris did not know the type of hate she was dealing with and as a result lost her life as she had to give up being Molly Norris. I love walking around and living as a kafir without ever having to worry about a true believer ever walking up to me and blowing himself up, or having to change my identity.
Posted by: AKafir | October 27, 2010 6:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Churchlady1 says: "
Reading the proof texting here in comments makes me wonder how often Christians read the Bible? It is rife with injunctions against infidels, enemies, aliens including directions to kill them and seize their lands - all of which is also contradicted by other passages on kindness, inclusion, justice toward all people.
Anyone can find justifications to hate and distrust others. It requires intelligence and study to realize how often you are wrong about that."
It is not so much what is in the books that is the problem at the moment. It is what are the laws and how are the non-muslims being treated and dealt with around the world, and why? Why are the laws of the muslim countries following the hate that is in the Koran for the non-muslims. Are the christians following the hate that you say is in the bible by putting them in their laws?
Do you think the muslims around the world should be asked to change their laws for the non-muslims or not? If they do then they will be facing the "extremists" who are actually doing the killing, and the reform that we all seek in Islam will take place. If we keep pretending that there is no hate but Islam is a religion of peace then nothing ever will change and the hate will never go away.
Just read what TOM86 writes. He is not willing to acknowledge that the Muslims themselves have said that their prayer that Muslims say five times a day has Allah cursing the jews and telling the christians that their bible is wrong. He wants to put the blame on the Indians because he thinks I am an Indian. See that the hate comes from the Imams and the Koran itself. If they won't even acknowledge the hate, how do you expect them to change.
Read what Askiz writes. He wants to blame it all on the jews. Why not a single word on what his Koran is saying and what his Imams are saying because that is what the muslims around the world are actually reading and being taught.
Posted by: AKafir | October 27, 2010 5:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"AKafir,"
Here u are surfcaing again from your dark cave wearing as usual the garb of a false scholar of Islam. Trust me:No one with any sense takes your rants/biles against Islam seriously.
Why u don't have the courage to show your identity?
Posted by: asizk | October 27, 2010 5:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Frankie,
Now that you exposed that anomalous and shameful infrastructure of hate, fear and racism, I hope your next article will be on: How to Dismantle it.
Posted by: asizk | October 27, 2010 5:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Tom86 writes: "Below is the translation of chapter 1. Only and Indian can twist it."
7. The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not (the path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who astray.
Who are those who earn Allah's anger?
Who are those who went astray?
It is not Indians who provide the answer to that.
Tafsir al-Jalalayn says for this ayet:
"the path of those whom You have favoured, with guidance (from alladhīna together with its relative clause is substituted by [ghayri l-maghdūbi ‘alayhim]) not [the path] of those against whom there is wrath, namely, the Jews, and nor of those who are astray, namely, the Christians. The subtle meaning implied by this substitution is that the guided ones are neither the Jews nor the Christians."
Tafsir ibn Abbas says:
"It is also said that (the path of those whom Thou hast favoured) refers to the prophets. (Not of those who earn Thine anger), not the religion of the Jews who earned Your anger, whom You forsook and whose hearts You did not protect until they became complaisant. (Nor of those who go astray), nor the religion of the Christians who erred from Islam."
Tafsir ibn Kathir says:
"(Not (the way) of those who earned Your anger, nor of those who went astray) meaning guide us to the straight path, the path of those upon whom you have bestowed Your grace, that is, the people of guidance, sincerity and obedience to Allah and His Messengers. They are the people who adhere to Allah's commandments and refrain from committing what He has prohibited. But, help us to avoid the path of those whom Allah is angry with, whose intentions are corrupt, who know the truth, yet deviate from it. Also, help us avoid the path of those who were led astray, who lost the true knowledge and, as a result, are wandering in misguidance, unable to find the correct path. Allah asserted that the two paths He described here are both misguided when He repeated the negation `not'. These two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews, a fact that the believer should beware of so that he avoids them. The path of the believers is knowledge of the truth and abiding by it. In comparison, the Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why `anger' descended upon the Jews, while being described as `led astray' is more appropriate of the Christians. Those who know, but avoid implementing the truth, deserve the anger, unlike those who are ignorant. The Christians want to seek the true knowledge, but are unable to find it because they did not seek it from its proper resources.
This is why they were led astray. We should also mention that both the Christians and the Jews have earned the anger and are led astray, but the anger is one of the attributes more particular of the Jews. Allah said about the Jews,
[مَن لَّعَنَهُ اللَّهُ وَغَضِبَ عَلَيْهِ]
(Those (Jews) who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath) (5:60).
******
So Tom which of these Tafsirs is by an Indian?
Posted by: AKafir | October 27, 2010 5:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Correct version.
Frankie,
1) I commend your moral courage, decency and objectivity as well as the time you fruitfully invested in this article.
2)Setting political correctness aside and after observing the American Scene for decades especially since the anomalous creation of the racist apartheid occupying so called state of 'isrl'and the unfortunate 9/11 attacks by some crazed persons who claim to be "Muslim"-I have observed that Jewish organization -AIPAC,ADL-and Jewish persons in all walks of American life have instigated a vicious campaign against Islam and Muslims and to distort Islam and demonize Muslims.
More dangerously and I would say catastrophically such campaign is focused on incitement against Islam and Muslims in America and the world: Why?
The answer is really simple:
a) Those behind these shameful campaigns believe that any harm and distortions to Islam and Muslims benefits 'isrl': this is why American Jews -generally speaking-promoted the war of choice on Iraq: because they think it was good for 'isrl' while American blood and treasure is wasted; we all remember Paul Wolfawitz and his gang;
b) Such disgraceful campaigns to demonize Islam and Muslims distract the misinformed American public from the Jewish occupation of all Arab historic Palestine-the longest occupation in modern history and its brutal and racist apartheid regime imposed on the downtrodden and permanently occupied Palestinian People-the only apartheid regime remaining on the planet;
c) Those behind these hate campaigns have another strategic objective: they aim at besieging the American Muslim community-as their cousin in Palestine besiege Gaza's children and refugees-so that the American Muslim community lives in fear and refrains from political organization to ensure that it does not stand up to the Zionist Jews who want to monopolize and exploit America's power to serve 'isrl' and Not rpt Not the national interests of the USA.
American and 'isrli' interests are essentially mutually exclusive-when American Jewish lobbies want us to believe that the two are one and the same.
America Jews have strangely found a marriage of convenience with right wing fundamentalist Christian extremists in an unholy alliance against Islam and Muslims for they falsely believe they have a common enemy in Muslims.
Americans of good well and especially the American Muslim Community should rise to the occasion and challenge those Islamophobes, racists, bigots and war mongers who perpetrate hate, fear, lies and falsehood about Islam and Muslims.
It is mind-boggling that Jews who went thru hell in Europe-pogroms and the holocaust-are doing the same to American Muslims.
Of course some Jews are fair and honrable: Michael Bloomberg stood up and spoke for the right of his Muslim citizens to build their community center in lower Manhattan. There are many Jews and Christians who stood up and spoke for acceptance and not just tolerance of American Muslims.
American Muslims are here to
Posted by: asizk | October 27, 2010 5:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Frankie,
1) I commend your moral courage, decency and objectivity as well as the time you fruitfully invested in this article.
2)Setting political correctness aside and after observing the American Scene for decades especially since the anomalous creation of the racist apartheid occupying so called state of 'isrl'and the unfortunate 9/11 attacks by some crazed persons who claim to be "Muslim"-I have observed that Jewish organization -AIPAC,ADL-and Jewish persons in all walks of American life have instigated a vicious campaign against Islam and Muslims and to distort Islam and demonize Muslims.
More dangerously and I would say catastrophically such campaign is focused on incitement against Islam and Muslims in America and the world: Why?
The answer is really simple:
a) Those behind these shameful campaigns believe that any harm and distortions to Islam and Muslims benefits 'isrl': this is why American Jews -generally speaking-promoted the war of choice on Iraq: because they think it was good for 'isrl' while American blood and treasure is wasted; we all remember Paul Wolfawitz and his gang;
b) Such disgraceful campaigns to demonize Islam and Muslims distract the misinformed American public from the Jewish occupation of all Arab historic Palestine-the longest occupation in modern history and its brutal and racist apartheid regime imposed on the downtrodden and permanently occupied Palestinian People-the only apartheid regime remaining on the planet;
c) Those behind these hate campaigns have another strategic objective: they aim at besieging the American Muslim community-as their cousin in Palestine besiege Gaza's children and refugees-so that the American Muslim community lives in fear and refrains from political organization to ensure that it does not stand up to the Zionist Jews who want to monopolize and exploit America's power to serve 'isrl' and the national interests of the USA.
American and 'isrli' interests are essentially mutually exclusive-when American Jewish lobbies want us to believe that the two are one and the same.
America Jews have strangely found a marriage of convenience with right wing fundamentalist Christian extremists in an unholy alliance against Islam and Muslims for they falsely believe they have a common enemy in Muslims.
Americans of good well and especially the American Muslim Community should rise to the occasion and challenge those Islamophobes, racists, bigots and war mongers who perpetrate hate, fear, lies and falsehood about Islam and Muslims.
It is mind-boggling that Jews who went thru hell in Europe-pogroms and the holocaust-are doing the same to American Muslims.
Of course some Jews are fair and honrable: Michael Bloomberg stood up and spoke for the right of his Muslim citizens to build their community center in lower Manhattan. There are many Jews and Christians who stood up and spoke for acceptance and not just tolerance of American Muslims.
American Muslims are here to stay
Posted by: asizk | October 27, 2010 4:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reading the proof texting here in comments makes me wonder how often Christians read the Bible? It is rife with injunctions against infidels, enemies, aliens including directions to kill them and seize their lands - all of which is also contradicted by other passages on kindness, inclusion, justice toward all people.
Anyone can find justifications to hate and distrust others. It requires intelligence and study to realize how often you are wrong about that.
Posted by: Churchlady1 | October 27, 2010 4:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Below is the translation of chapter 1. Only and Indian can twist it.
Surah 1,
THE OPENING
1. In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
2. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,
3. The Beneficent, the Merciful.
4. Owner of the Day of Judgment,
5. Thee (alone) we worship; Thee alone we ask for help.
6. Show us the straight path,
7. The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not (the path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who astray.
Posted by: Tom86 | October 27, 2010 3:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
When America divides (religious or racial rift) = India rise.
American lose jobs = Indians gain Jobs.
America becomes economically weaker = India becomes economically stronger.
GM, Ford and Chrysler close plants = Mahindra Mahidra sends tractors and pickup trucks to USA (American lose is an Indian win).
Fellow Americans, keep reading Indian trash while you lose your job to an Indian in India.
Posted by: Tom86 | October 27, 2010 2:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
RoseKnows:
Here is an example of a Friday Khutba
http://navedz.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/friday-khutbah-sermons-al-aqsa-is-crying-out-for-help/
*********************************
Are we not a Ummah that has its sources, values and historical rights? What do our Quran and Sunnah as well as our faith affirm? What does our history of the issue recorded which vividly confirmed that the war between us and the Jews is the war of faith, identity and existence? Are we not reading the word of Allah,
“Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and the polytheists…” (Surah Al Ma’idah 5:82)
And His saying,
“Never will the Jews nor the Christians will be pleased with you till you follow their religion…” (Surah Al Baqarah 2:120)
Read the history to know that yesterday’s Jews are evil predecessors and today’s Jews are worse successors. They an ingrate people, they altered God’s words, worshipped calf, killed Messengers and denied their Messages. They are exiled people and the worst of mankind. Allah cursed them and cast His wrath upon them. He turned some of them to monkeys and pigs and worshippers of creatures. They are worst in position and are astray from the right path.
History of Jews is full of deception, trickery, rebellion, oppression, evil and corruption. They always seek to cause mischief on the earth and Allah loves not the mischief-makers. They even insulted Allah. The Quran says,
“The Jews say: ‘Allah’s Hand is tied up (i.e. He does not give and spend of His Bounty). Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for what they uttered.’…” (Surah Al Ma’idah 5:64)
High and Glorified is Allah above what they uttered.
They have accused Allah’s Messengers with great and heinous crimes. They harmed Prophet Musa, denied Isa, killed Yahya and Zakariya and attempted to kill Prophet Muhammad. They used magic spell on him and poisoned food for him. Allah addresses them,
******************************
This type of hate is very normal and ordinary in these sermons. In pakistan the Imam will curse the Hindus and the Jews, while the hindus are spared in the middle east.
Posted by: AKafir | October 27, 2010 2:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Roseknows writes: "It isn't very Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) to be hateful. I was taught that hatefulness is the vestige of those who have no other ammunition, and are secretly very insecure in themselves."
Why do you write "or Muslim" when you obviously know nothing about Islam or Muslims? It is very Islamic to hate. As a matter of fact Islam's Prophet taught the Muslims to pray for Allah's curses on the Kafirs. Every Friday in mosques around the world the many imams will be invoking Allah's curses on the Kafirs and asking Allah to destroy the enemies of Muslims. Everyone knows that Allah asks the muslims to pray five times a day. One of the verses in that prayer runs:
Quran The very first Sura (Chapter)
Al Fatihah:
6. Guide us to the Straight Way
صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنعَمتَ عَلَيهِمْ
7. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace ,
غَيرِ المَغضُوبِ عَلَيهِمْ وَلاَ الضَّالِّينَ (٧)
not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews),
nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).
Five times a day the muslims as they pray to Allah recite that their Allah hates the jews and dislikes the Christians.
Posted by: AKafir | October 27, 2010 1:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It isn't very Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) to be hateful. I was taught that hatefulness is the vestige of those who have no other ammunition, and are secretly very insecure in themselves. It's easy to be rude, it's easy to lash out, especially when you perceive another's opinion as a personal attack.
What is difficult is taking the time to educate oneself on an opposing point of view or alien way of life. It was Dr. Ahmed who taught me that even Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter, who seem to respect no one but themselves, still deserve respect and that I shouldn't speak hatefully about them.
There is no honor in perpetuating hate. There does seem to be, however, a lot of money in it....
Posted by: roseknows | October 27, 2010 11:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What is wrong with Debbie Schlussel? Does she really think an agent for a terrorist organization would deliberately seek nationwide publicity in a pageant? At best, that sounds like a rejected plotline for a Miss Congeniality sequel.
Posted by: Carstonio | October 27, 2010 9:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you for an excellent article. I hope it helps to spread understanding and tolerance on all sides.
Posted by: dricks | October 27, 2010 7:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It appears that anti-Muslim hate have fine control over the topics discussed, Just like my gardener makes a good pest control. I like this story
Posted by: singleworker | October 27, 2010 6:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Muslims killed 175 million Hindus in just one country, India. The killed every Zoroastrian unless they converted to Islam. That is why ther eare no Zoroastrian left there and almost every one is in India."
---Secular
***************************************
This idiot probably thinks every Hindu that died a natural death during 1000 year muslim rule was killed by muslims. Cant fault him though. Thats the kind of history RSS and Shiv Sena Goons teach in indian schools. Can we actually see the proof of muslims killing 4-5 million zoroastrians? These guys get all their info from the hate islam sites this article talks about. Real Education is their enemy.
Posted by: yasseryousufi | October 27, 2010 5:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
cont'd
************************
The question for the American Muslim is why is it that the Islamic laws are so hateful, and why do they plan to and want to, as by the words of their organisations, impose such hate upon the Kafirs of USA? People like Mr. Ahmed, Mr. Reza Aslan, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, etc. who sell themselves as extremely reasonable and moderate muslims but support and fund organizations whose avowed desire is to impose "Sharia" on the Kafirs here. Have they ever raised any objection to these Islamic laws? Have they ever raised any objections to CAIR or ISNA wanting to import Sharia? Have they ever written or spoken against the hatred against the Kafirs so pervasive in the muslim world? Have they ever spoken up for an equality between the Kafirs and the Muslims?
Why don't they ever speak up against the hate for the Kafirs in Islam?
I have been searching and I have never found any such statement even on "moderate" islamic sites such as altmuslim.com.
Posted by: AKafir | October 26, 2010 11:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Secular writes on October 26, 2010 1:57 PM: "Sir, it is not enough to say that the you or the western muslims do not have much say in laws of those countries. That may indeed be true, but the fact that the people of those countries sem to be unmindful of those draconian laws against teh non-muslims, that implies that to some extent or the other they (muslims) do subscribe to teh unequal treatment of non-muslims in their countries. "
The point is that when discriminatory and hateful laws for the non-muslims are essentially the same for as different countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Mali, Brunei, etc. then it should be obvious to even an idiot that the hate is not an aspect of the "native" culture that many muslims often blame but has to be intrinsic to Islam. These hateful laws are part of the Islamic Sharia that the muslims keep wanting to import and which people like CAIR, ISNA, etc. have openly and vocally said that they would eventually like to have in the USA.
*********************
"We must implement Islam as a totality, in which Allah controls every place, the home, the classroom, the science lab, the halls of Congress."
Amir Abdul Malik Ali, Oakland, CA Imam
"Muslims cannot accept the legitimacy of the existing American order, since it is against the orders and ordainments of Allah."
Imam Zaid Shakir, former Muslim Chaplain at Yale University
"In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. and the only thing left will be Islam."
Siraj Wahhaj, Brooklyn, NY Imam
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future..."
Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR
"Ultimately, we [Muslims] can never be full citizens of this country...because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country"
Ihsan Bagby, CAIR
"If you don't give us justice. If you don't give us equality. If you don't give us our share of America. If you don't stay out of our way and leave us alone, we're gonna burn America down."
Abdul Alim Musa, Washington, D.C. Imam
"Now, all our imams, our public speakers, should be concentrating on militarizing the Muslim public...Only carrying arms will do this task."
Muhammad Al-Asi, Former Imam at the Washington, D.C. Islamic Center
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth..."
Omar Ahmad, CAIR
******************************
cont'd
Posted by: AKafir | October 26, 2010 11:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The "Tea Party" is nothing less than the resurrection of the German Nazi Party in the USA.
Posted by: thomasmc1957 | October 26, 2010 8:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Tom86 you said:
Chinese and Indian together produce more PhD holders than USA produces high school graduates. Keep harping about Islam while Indians and Chinese pull the rug under the USA.
Thats still Kafir Ph Ds. My friend. Why is it that 1.5 billion are not producing any is the real question.
Did Muslims kill 6 million innocent Jews during WW II for no reason?Did Muslims kill 5 million innocent Gypsies during WW II for no reason?
Did Muslims kill 4 million innocent Vietnamese for no reason?
Muslims killed 175 million Hindus in just one country, India. The killed every Zoroastrian unless they converted to Islam. That is why ther eare no Zoroastrian left there and almost every one is in India.
Did Muslims take someone else’s land (killed local people or made refugees) to make their own home like Israel, North America, South America, and Asutralia?What do you think of all the 53 out of the 54 OIC countries. You think they were all muslim countries for age immemorial? What happened to the Coptic Egypt, or Christian Abyssinia, or Asia Minor, Hindu Indonesia, or the Buddhist Malaysia.
Did Muslims create the largest refugee (6 million Palestinians) camps in the world?Oh don't worry they created order magnitudes more refugees that you can imagine. What do you think they did in 1947 in the Indian subcontinent.
Did Muslims systematically rape women in Bosnia?Did you ever hear of Sati, in India? When do you think it got started and why? That was Indian women selfimmolating themselves with their martyred husband either because they were raped by the invading muslims, in keeping with their prophet or to avoid it.
Did Muslims colonize other countries in Asia, Africa, South America, North America, Australia and wiped out the indigenous population?Only from Egypt to Indonesia. From Kazakhstan to souther Africa.
Did Muslim nations/countries use Quran to legitimize and perpetuate slavery in North America, South America?Yes they did until 1950s that's when slavery was abolished in Dar ul Islam the land of the peace
Posted by: Secular | October 26, 2010 8:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Frankie says:
“Ahmed is a Muslim in the media who is saying that Islam is not inherently violent and that Islam and America are compatible.”
He can say whatever he wishes yet the evidence speaks louder than what you or your friend Ahmed are claiming. Suffice to read the history of your prophet as relayed by his companions and the history of Islam according to Muslim historians. As to the compatibility of Sharia with the American constitution, that is not so eloquent way of saying that “darkness and light are compatible.” Please have some respect for the intelligence of the WAPO readers.
Posted by: abrahamhab1 | October 26, 2010 7:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Not to mention that demonizing Muslims and scapegoating them make one hell of a Rovian "Southern Strategy" political wedge issue not that St. Ronald Reagan defeated the old enemy, Communism, single handidly.
Posted by: areyousaying | October 26, 2010 6:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
correction for the previous post: There were 25 to 30% non-muslims in Pakistan in 1947. Now the non-muslims are slightly less than 3%.
Posted by: AKafir | October 26, 2010 6:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Tom86:
Would you like "us" to treat the muslims amongst us as the Chinese treats its muslim population? Is that what you are suggesting? Ask some Uighur. Why do you think China is doing that?
When British left South Asia, the muslims of that region decided that there really were two separate nations there Muslims and Non-muslims and the muslims did not want to live with the non-muslims. To achieve separation over a million died and over ten million were uprooted. There were 25 to 30% non-muslims in Pakistan in 1947. In Kafir India Muslims increased from 10% to about 13% at present. Here is news from India from last month:
http://hindusamhati.blogspot.com/2010/09/deganga-burns.html
POLICE OFFICER INJURED AT DEGANGA
September 6, 2010 : Today evening after Iftar, Muslims assembled in the Deganga Mosque (Basirhat SD, North 24 Parganas) and proceeded to a number of Hindu areas, looted and ransacked many Hindu shops and Hindu temples, severely beat up many Hindus, torched 4 public buses. The life of the whole stretch from Berachapa to Kadamgachi has been frozen.
****
As in Europe, the Indian Press cannot report "communal" problems and so Muslims cannot be named. Same news from their mainstream media:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata-/Peace-eludes-troubled-Deganga-/articleshow/6521725.cms
Around 23 houses were ransacked by attackers near Salimpukur and Hospital area, off Taki Road. The victims have taken shelter at nearby Kartikpur. The officer-in-charge of Deganga police station, Arup Ghosh, was injured during brickbatting by a mob. Women from the area held a demonstration outside Deganga police station, demanding security.
***
Not one word on who was in that mob!!
So is that what you think the Americans should resign themselves to?
Of course we have to compete and build up economically as well, but not at the cost that you seem to be suggesting.
Posted by: AKafir | October 26, 2010 6:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
BTW...this if for those muslim appeasers who like to bring up Timothy McVeigh:
Regardless of what his birth certificate may or may not have said, McVeigh was NOT a religious man. At no time did he credit his deeds to religion, quote Bible verses, or claim that he killed for God.
The so-called “members of other faiths” alluded to by Muslims and their appeasing media friends are nearly always just nominal members who have NO active involvement. They are neither inspired by, nor do they credit RELIGION as Muslim terrorists do, and this is what makes it a very different matter.
Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves CHOOSE to make.
Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims and the liberal media enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There were FIVE deadly attacks over a 35 year period in the U.S. SEVEN people died. This is an average of ONE death every 5 years. ONE!!!
By contrast, Islamic terrorists have staged over 16,000 DEADLY attacks in just the 9 years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably exceeds 7,000,000 over this same period.
In the last 9 years, there have been perhaps a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths COMBINED. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly EVERY DAY of the year.
Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god or are "not-muslim-enough."
Posted by: zakgold | October 26, 2010 5:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Let's do a little rational thinking here...
Islam means “peace” IF (huge “IF” here) when one “submits and surrenders” to their (sharia) way of life and to their moon-god-allah.
If you don’t “submit and surrender”, there is NO PEACE…never has, is, and will be.
Look to their source documents that drive this madness like the Koran. The Koran encompasses over 60% of its content with how to convert, enslave, hold ransom, tax (called jizya in Arabic), punish, wife-beat (Koran 4:34), fight and yes…KILL non-Muslims and those “not-Muslim-enough”!!
WAKE UP PEOPLE...DO THE MATH!! OPEN YOUR EYES!!
Posted by: zakgold | October 26, 2010 5:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
One day my 3 ½ years old very observant daughter said “dad every thing is made in China except three things, trees, roads and houses”.
Chinese and Indian together produce more PhD holders than USA produces high school graduates. Keep harping about Islam while Indians and Chinese pull the rug under the USA.
Did Muslims kill 6 million innocent Jews during WW II for no reason?
Did Muslims kill 5 million innocent Gypsies during WW II for no reason?
Did Muslims kill 4 million innocent Vietnamese for no reason?
Did Muslim army invaded Iraq and killed 1 million innocent Iraqis for no reason?
Did Muslims start WW I?
Did Muslims start WW II?
Did Muslims take someone else’s land (killed local people or made refugees) to make their own home like Israel, North America, South America, and Asutralia?
Did Muslims create the largest refugee (6 million Palestinians) camps in the world?
Did Muslims systematically rape women in Bosnia?
Did Muslims colonize other countries in Asia, Africa, South America, North America, Australia and wiped out the indigenous population?
Did Muslim nations/countries use Quran to legitimize and perpetuate slavery in North America, South America?
Was Hitler Muslim?
Was Mussolini a Muslim?
Are Muslim countries paying billions of dollars to keep dictators like Hosni Mubarak and Saudi Kings in place to brutally suppress population of these countries?
Posted by: Tom86 | October 26, 2010 4:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Who need "Soldiers of Jesus?" if can manage to kill over a million innocent Muslims in their own countries (Iraq and Afghanistan).
They don’t call "Soldiers of Jesus?" instead they call “lean mean killing machine”
Posted by: Tom86 | October 26, 2010 4:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Where are the 50 equivalents of Faisal Shahzad and Nidal Hassan calling themselves "Soldiers of Jesus?"
Who need "Soldiers of Jesus?" if can manage to kill over a million innocent Muslims in their own countries (Iraq and Afghanistan).
Posted by: Tom86 | October 26, 2010 4:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The last post was not to Frankie but to Abbott2.
Posted by: AKafir | October 26, 2010 4:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Frankie:
"Prophet said that "the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr."
That is a lie. It is a well known fabricated Hadith. Go ahead and ask Ahmed to provide a link to its source.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10846424/100-Fabricated-Hadith
Look at fabricated hadith number 73 on page 106.
Posted by: AKafir | October 26, 2010 4:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
cont'd
The first demand of the Copts is:
http://www.copts.com/english/?page_id=20
1- Copts want the antiquated 19th Century Hamayouni decree be abolished. It is inconceivable to require that the president of Egypt must approve permits to build a church or even to repair a toilet in a church. Mosques in Egypt are being built with no restrictions.
Is that not flowing from the command of Umar? Do the same restriction apply to the miniscule christian population in "Secular" Turkey or not?
You work with Professor Ahmed. Why don't you ask him what are the rights of the christians and hindus in Pakistan? Ask him how many christians have been killed, burned, and beheaded in Pakistan in the last 50 years? Ask him how many Ahmedis have been killed in Pakistan? Ask him how many Bahais have been killed in Iran? And then ask him what has he done about all that injustice in Muslim countries towards the non-muslims? Not what he has done in Kafir America or Kafir England, but what has he said to stop the killings, rapes, beheadings, and burning of christians in Pakistan, Sudean, Nigeria, etc. Then come back and tell us what do you think?
Posted by: AKafir | October 26, 2010 4:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Frankie,
The Sharia laws all incorporate the Pact of Umar.
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20986
Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace
Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said,
«لَا تَبْدَءُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى بِالسَّلَامِ، وَإِذَا لَقِيتُمْ أَحَدَهُمْ فِي طَرِيقٍ فَاضْطَرُّوهُ إِلَى أَضْيَقِه»
(Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.) This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace. The scholars of Hadith narrated from `Abdur-Rahman bin Ghanm Al-Ash`ari that he said, "I recorded for `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: `In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. This is a document to the servant of Allah `Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors [of our houses of worship] for the wayfarer and passerby. Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit [or betrayal] against Muslims. We will not teach our children the Qur'an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or ride on saddles, hang swords on the shoulders, collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets.
We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims,
cont'd
Posted by: AKafir | October 26, 2010 4:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Frankie,
It is not Muslims that are the problem. It is Islam and its Sharia. Islam hates non-muslims.
Maybe your
Here are a few of the laws that are for the non-muslims in the Islamic countries. Although the article talks about "arabs", the same laws apply in Pakistan, Malaysia, Brunei, Mali, and many other non-arab muslim countries.
- A non-Muslim may become a Muslim, whereas a Muslim may not change his religion or even express a religious opinion that is different from what is generally agreed upon. Anyone who dares contradict this principle is considered an apostate and thrown in prison, or is killed if he cannot escape to a foreign country. He is also separated from his wife and his money is distributed to his relatives as if he were dead.
- A Muslim man may marry a non-Muslim woman who belongs to one of the three religions, while she may still belong to her religion if she does not wish to embrace Islam. But a man who is of another religion may not marry a Muslim woman without becoming a Muslim. The non-Muslim who marries a Muslim woman without changing his religion has an illegitimate marriage and can be separated from his wife by force. Some even demand the murder of the man.
- In the case of a mixed marriage between a Muslim man and a non-Muslim woman, their children are considered Muslim even if they decide otherwise. Children have no right to change their religion even when they become older, and if they do, they are considered apostates. Arab laws do not acknowledge freedom of religion and choice.
- Arab laws prevent inheritance between a Muslim and a non-Muslim. In mixed marriages, a Christian wife may not inherit the property of her Muslim husband, and a Muslim husband may not inherit the property of his Christian wife. The Muslim children may also not inherit the property of their mother. If a Muslim becomes an apostate, then his Muslim relatives take his money, but if a Christian becomes a Muslim, his Christian relatives may not inherit anything after his death.
Those who do not want to belong to any religion because they have no religious convictions have no rights at all. They may not marry or inherit property. That is how religion becomes a kind of thorn without moral value that threatens the rights of individuals, and will threaten society sooner or later.
Are these laws part of Sharia or not? Are they part of the laws of the Muslim countries or not at present? Do you think they reflect at all anything how Islam views non-muslims or not?
Posted by: AKafir | October 26, 2010 4:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Islam is just as peaceful as Christianity and Judaism, if not more so. In one of the hadiths, the Prophet said that "the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr."
Yes we can find such pearls everywhere buried under a pile of horse manure, about killing the infidels, etc, etc. Please enlighten us how much of that statement did MO really put into practice? Yes, yes give us the context of that pearl.
Posted by: Secular | October 26, 2010 2:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Frankie Martin, Your defense of Mr. Ahmed is quite passionate. However, what Ms. Rubenfeld said in her articles is really irrelevant. We all have access to Koran, Hadith, etc, etc. The criticism of Islam based on the contents of those vile scripture of Islam. When you quote Adams or Franklin, or Jefferson about Mohamed, are you quoting from any scholarly work of theirs or a passing comment made by them. A passing comment would require a lot of context in which the comment was made. Just like you pointed out that Adam's quote Ms. Rubenfeld cited. Would you care to give teh larger context the complimentary comments were made. I suspect those were pretty off handed comments made by them. However, reading of Koran and Hadith amply informs us that Mohamed was quite a hedonistic, narcissistic, vindictive, brutal, utterly devoid of compassion, sexually perverted, oppressive person, to say the least. My intellect just does not accept that a person is a noble person, who forces a young widow, whose husband his troops at his behest tortured to extract the hiding place of treasures, and killed, to marry the same evening, is a noble character. Your task is not done when you discredit Ms. Rubenfeld. The challenge you are facing is to show that Koran, as claimed is an eternal and final guidance to human kind, is indeed that. Not by showing that other scripture is equally banal and vile. You need to show that the truth claims made in that book are indeed true. You need to show that the math involved in teh division of property is correct. You need to show that the division of property is indeed fair and equitable. These are just a few examples I have cited. Then you have to categorically show why the OIC countries are correct in their drafting of civil laws compared to the laws in the western countries. If not would you be bold enough to carry teh water to those countries andd tell them their laws are flawed. Sir, it is not enough to say that the you or the western muslims do not have much say in laws of those countries. That may indeed be true, but the fact that the people of those countries sem to be unmindful of those draconian laws against teh non-muslims, that implies that to some extent or the other they (muslims) do subscribe to teh unequal treatment of non-muslims in their countries. That sir is indeed an indictment of muslims, to the same extent as their unwillingness to correct those draconian laws.
Posted by: Secular | October 26, 2010 1:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Islam is just as peaceful as Christianity and Judaism, if not more so. In one of the hadiths, the Prophet said that "the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr."
There will always be radicals on either side who are close-minded and unwilling to see the good in others. But the rest of us have a duty to remind them that they don't speak for everyone.
Posted by: Abbott2 | October 26, 2010 1:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Couldn't you write virtually the same article substituting "Jews" for "Muslims" and Islamic nations for Western ones?
Posted by: WmarkW | October 26, 2010 12:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The problem is not American or European xenophobia; the problem is Islamic xenophobia, expressed among foreigners in foreign lands.
The expression of modern Islam has a nihilistic streak in it, which seeks to destroy all that is not Islamic; whether any individual Muslim subscribes to this nihilism is irrelevant to the way that all Muslims must invariably be perceived by the targeted societies of this nihilism.
This is a problem for Islam to work out, if Islam wants to become integrated into a greater world of multi-cultrual diversity.
Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | October 26, 2010 12:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There must be 25 times as many Christians as Muslims in America.
Where are the 50 equivalents of Faisal Shahzad and Nidal Hassan calling themselves "Soldiers of Jesus?"
Posted by: WmarkW | October 26, 2010 12:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I am the director of Campus Watch [CW], a project of the Middle East Forum. In his intemperate--one might even say hateful--attack on the Investigative Project's Laura Rubenfeld, Frankie Martin confuses the contents of Campus Watch's extensive archives with our own research. Martin attacks CW for being part of a supposed conspiracy of "hate bloggers" who malign Islam and "Prophet Muhammad":
Like so many posts, Rubenfeld's article was circulated incestuously amongst the hate bloggers and caught fire online. In addition to its prominent placement on Pajamas Media, Rubenfeld's article was featured on the Jawa Report, Daniel Pipes' Campus Watch. . . .
Had Martin taken the time to thoroughly research the targets of his diatribe, he would have found the following disclaimer, which appears on every article in CW's archives that we did not commission or produce in-house:
Note: Articles listed under "Middle East studies in the News" provide information on current developments concerning Middle East studies on North American campuses. These reports do not necessarily reflect the views of Campus Watch and do not necessarily correspond to Campus Watch's critique.
As this disclaimer states clearly, CW archives material on Middle East studies in North America whether we agree with its content or not. For amassing such an archive, Campus Watch is a "hate blogger"? Such an absurd charge is analogous to demanding that a library remove from its collection all books and articles one finds distasteful. Is this what Martin intends--to place himself in the company of sour censors who would scour library shelves in search of supposedly errant or insulting information? Will Catcher in the Rye be the next target of Martin's malicious and uninformed attacks?