Archive for the ‘Blasphemy’ category

The Great Price of “Blaspheming” against Muhammad

May 15, 2017

The Great Price of “Blaspheming” against Muhammad, Gatestone InstituteRaymond Ibrahim, May 14, 2017

Because the word of a Christian “infidel” is not valid against the word of a Muslim, accusations of blasphemy, often with little or no evidence, routinely lead to the beating, imprisonment, and possible killing of Christians and other minorities every month in Pakistan.

“The available evidence in all these cases suggests that charges were brought as a measure to intimidate and punish members of minority religious communities… hostility towards religious minority groups appeared in many cases to be compounded by personal enmity, professional or economic rivalry or a desire to gain political advantage.” — Amnesty International.

“Iran sentences a 21-year-old man to death for ‘insulting Islam’ … after confessing when police promised he would be pardoned if he came clean.” — Daily Mail.

A few days ago in Pakistan, a Christian pastor who has been “tortured every day in prison” since 2012 when he was first incarcerated, was sentenced to life in prison. Zafar Bhatti, 51, is accused of sending “blasphemous” text messages from his mobile phone; but human rights activists contend that the charge “was fabricated to remove him from his role as a Pastor.” His wife, Nawab Bibi, says:

“Many Muslim people hated how quickly his church was growing; they have taken this action to undermine his work. Yet despite their actions the church grows. I wish our persecutors would see that Christians are not evil creatures. We are human beings created by God the same God that created them although they do not know this yet.”

She adds, “There have been numerous attempts to kill my husband — he is bullied everyday and he is not safe from inmates and prison staff alike.” In 2014, he “narrowly escaped assassination after a rogue prison officer,” Muhammad Yousaf, went on a shooting spree “to kill all inmates accused of blasphemy against Islam.”

Bhatti is one of countless Christian minorities to suffer under Pakistan’s blasphemy law, which has helped make that country the fourth-worst nation in the world in which to be Christian.

Asia Bibi, a Christian wife and mother, has been on death row since 2010 on the accusation that she insulted the Islamic prophet Muhammad. According to Section 295-C of Pakistan’s penal code:

“Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Because the word of a Christian “infidel” is not valid against the word of a Muslim, accusations of blasphemy, often with little or no evidence, routinely lead to the beating, imprisonment or killing of Christians and other minorities every month in Pakistan.[1] An Amnesty International report from 1994 summarizes the situation:

Several dozen people have been charged with blasphemy in Pakistan over the last few years; in all the cases known to Amnesty International, the charges of blasphemy appear to have been arbitrarily brought, founded solely on the individuals’ minority religious beliefs… The available evidence in all these cases suggests that charges were brought as a measure to intimidate and punish members of minority religious communities… hostility towards religious minority groups appeared in many cases to be compounded by personal enmity, professional or economic rivalry or a desire to gain political advantage. As a consequence, Amnesty International has concluded that most of the individuals now facing charges of blasphemy, or convicted on such charges, are prisoners of conscience, detained solely for their real or imputed religious beliefs in violation of their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

Other Christians accused of blasphemy never get the chance for even a mock trial and are dealt “justice” at the hands of angry mobs — such as the young Christian couple burned alive on a spurious accusation of blasphemy in November 2014. A report from 2012 found that “Since 1990 alone, fifty-two people have been extra-judicially murdered on charges of blasphemy” in Pakistan.

Last month, three burqa-wearing sisters shot and killed a man accused of committing blasphemy in 2004. “[W]e couldn’t kill him at the time because we were too young then,” they explained.

Also last month, a 23-year-old college student “was killed and another seriously injured by a vigilante mob for allegedly ‘publishing blasphemous content online.'” The incident occurred on campus; the mob was yelling “Allahu Akbar” throughout.

Although Islam’s blasphemy law is most associated with Pakistan, several other Muslim nations use it to persecute Christians and other minorities. Days ago, around the same time Bhatti was being sentenced to life in Pakistan, in Indonesia, Ahok, the Christian governor of Jakarta, was sentenced to two years in prison on the charge of insulting Islam and desecrating the Koran.[2] Similarly, on March 30, a report appeared saying, “Iran sentences a 21-year-old man to death for ‘insulting Islam’ … after confessing when police promised he would be pardoned if he came clean.”

JAKARTA, INDONESIA – MAY 09: Members of various hardline Muslim groups celebrate after Jakarta’s Governor was convicted of committing blasphemy on May 9, 2017 in Jakarta, Indonesia. Hardline Muslim groups gathered outside Jakarta’s court during the trial of Governor Basuki Tjahaja Pernama known widely as “Ahok”, who was sentenced to two years in prison on Tuesday after being found guilty of blasphemy as the trial continues to threaten social harmony in the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation. (Photo by Ed Wray/Getty Images)

Earlier this year in Algeria, Samir Chamek, a 34-year-old Christian man, was sentenced to a year in prison after a court found him “guilty of insulting Islam and its prophet over items he posted on his Facebook page.” They were described as “accusing the prophet Muhammad of terrorism and murder and comparing the prophet to Hitler, mentioning the persecution and massacre of the Jews.” Also in Algeria, last August, a Muslim convert to Christianity was sentenced to the maximum five years in prison for saying that the light of Jesus will outshine Islam and its prophet Muhammad on social media, which the court ruled as “blasphemous.”

In October, in Ethiopia, four Christian girls — aged 18, 15, 14, and 14 — handed out a booklet entitled, “Let’s speak the truth in love.” Because it challenged Islamic accusations against Christianity, local Muslims deemed the book blasphemous and rioted. They attacked a church and assaulted Christians. The girls were arrested and, after a brief court hearing on November 15, sentenced to a month in prison.

As in Pakistan, Muslims mobs and “vigilantes” often take “the law” into their own hands. In March, in India, a Muslim-turned-atheist “was hacked to death by a four-member gang” of Muslims. Last September, a Christian writer and activist was murdered outside of a courthouse in Jordan. The 56-year-old man was earlier arrested for sharing a “blasphemous” cartoon about the Islamic prophet Muhammad. As he was walking into court to stand trial for “contempt of religion” and “inciting sectarian strife,” a man dressed in traditional Muslim garb shot him to death.

Last August, in Nigeria, after two university students got into an argument, the Muslim student accused the Christian student of insulting Muhammad. Soon a mob of Muslims assembled and said the Christian must die. Then they savagely beat and nearly killed him. The following day, mobs of Muslims rioted and vandalized Christian campuses and churches.

Such nonstop accusations, incarcerations, murders, torture and death penalties meted out to non-Muslims on the mere accusation of “blasphemy” — at the hands of mobs, vigilantes, and court judges — call into question any claims of tolerance, modernity or pluralism in many Muslim-majority nations.

Raymond Ibrahim is the author ofCrucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians(published by Regnery with Gatestone Institute, April 2013).


[1] At least one but often more blasphemy-related cases appear practically every month in Pakistan and are documented in the monthly “Muslim Persecution of Christians” reports. The following are incidents that occurred in the last report, January 2017:

  • An evangelical Christian was arrested on charges of blasphemy and faces the death penalty. According to a complaint by a Muslim, Haji Nadeem, Shahbaz Babu desecrated the Koran by writing his name on some pages, tearing them up and then scattering them on the street in front of a mosque. Although the Muslim admits he did not see the accused in the act, Babu—whom rights activists say is “completely illiterate”—was nonetheless arrested. In a nation where the mere accusation that an infidel insulted Islam could get the non-Muslim killed by the mob, executed by the state or simply imprisoned, Babu’s defenders wonder at the notion that he “is supposed to have desecrated the Qurʾān in secret, but then left the evidence for everyone to see.” Others say that he was disliked by the mosque because several members had stopped attending it and listening to the evangelist who is popular in his region.
  • An imam in Lambanwali accused an elderly Christian of writing and sending to him a series of “derogatory letters” in which he defamed Islamic prophet Muhammad. Once the blasphemy accusation was made, police promptly stormed the Christian’s home in the night and arrested his entire family. Although the man denies the accusation—correctly pointing out that only a suicide would do what he is accused of doing in Pakistan—he “is likely to face an imprisonment of 10 years while there are assumptions that Section 295-C might be invoked in order to aggravate the punishment to death penalty,” said the report.
  • A blasphemy case was registered against Shaan Taseer—son of Salman Taseer, a human rights activist and defender of persecuted Christians who was assassinated by Muslims—for saying “Merry Christmas.”
  • Five Christian rights activists were known for their public opposition to the country’s blasphemy laws all went missing within the same week.

[2] The blasphemy controversy erupted when a video appeared online of Ahok saying that many Muslims misunderstand Koran 5:51 — which commands Muslims not to befriend Jews and Christians. That a Christian would dare try to distort the Koran’s call for hostility against Christians and Jews in order to boost his chances at reelection was deemed blasphemous enough to prompt mass riots and calls for his death in Indonesia.

Sentencing of Indonesian Christian Governor of Jakarta on blasphemy charge is a reminder of the rising global Islamist threat.

May 10, 2017

Sentencing of Indonesian Christian Governor of Jakarta on blasphemy charge is a reminder of the rising global Islamist threat., AIFD, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, May 10, 2017

(Please see also, Saudi Arabia’s ‘Lavish’ Gift to Indonesia: Radical Islam. — DM)

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) condemned the sentencing of an Indonesian Christian politician, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, for “blasphemy.” The sentencing of Mr. Basuki, the Jakarta governor, also known as “Ahok” was heavier than what prosecutors asked for – rather than the two years probation they requested, he was sentenced to two years in prison.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D., founder and president of AIFD, released the following statement:

“The fact that Mr. Basuki was even brought up on charges of ‘blasphemy’ – a truly invented ‘crime’ – is horrifying. The reality of his sentencing should alarm all people, not just Christians, and not just Indonesians.

Indonesia has long enjoyed the reputation of being a model of Muslim moderation and pluralism, yet its problem of Islamism is real: from soaring rates of female genital mutilation (FGM) to violent protests against authors and artists for ‘blasphemy,’ the country is undergoing an ugly and dangerous radicalization that will hurt, kill, and traumatize its citizens and leak across its borders, threatening global security. Mr. Basuki was a governor whose election had only improved Indonesia’s global reputation. His sentencing proves that those who are loyal to Islamist forces no longer care about upholding this image for Indonesia, instead they seek a more sinister role in the world.

Ahok’s case again proves that the nation is on the front lines of this global existential battle against Islamism.

We urge Indonesian citizens to challenge their religious establishments – particularly the Nahdlatul Ulama – to take swift and bold action to condemn and dis-empower those who support and promote punishments for blasphemy, and to demand that their government do the same. I visited Indonesia during my time on the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom, and know that this evil does not represent them. Their government must do better to protect and represent the will of its people.”

A Slap in the Face to Democracy: Canada’s “Anti-Islamophobia” Motion

May 9, 2017

A Slap in the Face to Democracy: Canada’s “Anti-Islamophobia” Motion, Gatestone InstituteRuthie Blum, May 9, 2017

(Please see also, Tarek Fatah on M-103: “Replace the word Islamophobia with Islamofascism”. — DM)

“While the NCCM’s open letter does not directly call for Sharia law or the criminalization of criticism of Islam, it does advance the notion that the famously tolerant nation of Canada must set up anti-racism directorates in each province to track instances of Islamophobia, institute a mandatory course on systemic racism for Canadian high school students, and train its police officers to use bias-neutral policing.” — Josh Lieblein, The Daily Caller.

“Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning… so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive policies,” wrote Samer Majzoub, a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate of the Canadian Muslim Forum — presumably meaning that the next steps are to make it binding.

“The objective of Jihad… warrants that one must struggle against Kufr (disbelief) and Shirk (polytheism) and the worship of falsehood in all its forms. Jihad has to continue until this objective is achieved.” — ICNA Canada website.

Growing concern in Canada over liberal policies benefitting Muslim extremists sheds light on why an “anti-Islamophobia” bill — proposed in the wake of the deadly January 17 Quebec City mosque attack and approved by parliament on March 23 — spurred such heated controversy there.

Motion 103, tabled by Liberal Party MP Iqra Khalid, a Muslim representing Mississauga-Erin Mills, calls on the Canadian government to “develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.” Because the bill makes no mention of any other religious group targeted by bigots, it was opposed by most Conservative Party politicians and a majority of the public.

Ahead of what would turn out to be a 201-91 vote in favor of the motion, a petition was circulated asking MPs not to support it. According to the petition, Motion 103 would “lay the groundwork for imposing what is essentially a Sharia anti-blasphemy law on all of Canada.”

The petition further stated:

“…criticism of Islam would constitute a speech crime in Canada.

“This motion uses the term ‘islamophobia’ without defining it, and without substantiating that there is in fact any such widespread problem in Canada.

“This will lead to ideologically-driven overreach and enforcement against alternative points of view—including mature, reasoned criticisms of Islam.

  • “Criticism of the treatment of women in Islamic-majority Middle Eastern countries could be criminalized;
  • “It could be a punishable offense to speak out against the Mustlim Brotherhood, or to denounce radical Imams who want to enact Sharia law in Canada;
  • “Criticism or depiction of Muhammad could be punishable by law;
  • “Schools that teach the history of Islam’s violent conquests could be fined—or worse.

“That kind of content-based, viewpoint-discriminatory censorship is unacceptable in a Western liberal democracy.”

Meanwhile, citizens bemoaning what they view as the increasing radicalization of Muslim communities in Canada, due largely to the unfettered immigration policies of the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, took to the streets of Toronto, Ottawa and other cities to denounce the bill. This response took place in spite of its being non-binding.

A closer look at Motion 103’s initiator, supporters and other respected Muslim figures in Canada, however, indicates that there is cause for worry.

“Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning… All of us must work hard to maintain our peaceful, social and humanitarian struggle so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive policies,” wrote Samer Majzoub, a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate of the Canadian Muslim Forum — presumably meaning that the next steps are to make it binding.

According to Islamist Watch’s Josh Lieblein, writing in The Daily Caller:

” …Khalid is a former President of York University’s Muslim Students Association, a student group with documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Similarly, Omar Alghabra is a former director of the Canadian Arab Federation, an association that has published statements in support of terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

“M103’s supporters in the Muslim community have questionable ties of their own. It has been reported that Samer Majzoub was the manager of a Montreal private school that received a $70,761 donation from the Kuwait embassy, while the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) – formerly the Canadian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Council on American-Islamic Relationspublished an open letter linking M103 to a wide-ranging campaign aimed at reducing systemic racism and Islamophobia in Canada.

“While the NCCM’s open letter does not directly call for Sharia law or the criminalization of criticism of Islam, it does advance the notion that the famously tolerant nation of Canada must set up anti-racism directorates in each province to track instances of Islamophobia, institute a mandatory course on systemic racism for Canadian high school students, and train its police officers to use bias-neutral policing.”

This attempt to turn free speech on its head in Canada is in keeping with the teachings of the country’s top Muslim cleric, Iqbal Al-Nadvi, chairman of the Canadian Council of Imams, president of the Canadian branch of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Muslim chaplain of the Canadian army.

ICNA is an organization that strives “to build an Exemplary Canadian Muslim Community” by “total submission to Him [Allah] and through the propagation of true and universal message of Islam,” according to Jonathan D. Halevi.

Al-Nadvi, he pointed out, has openly quoted the Islamic Prophet Muhammed asserting, “Jihad will continue till the Day of Judgment.”

Canada’s top Muslim cleric, Iqbal Al-Nadvi, who is chairman of the Canadian Council of Imams, president of the Canadian branch of the Islamic Circle of North America and the Muslim chaplain of the Canadian army, has openly quoted the Islamic Prophet Muhammed asserting, “Jihad will continue till the Day of Judgment.” (Image source: ICNA video screenshot)

ICNA Canada’s website states:

“The objective of Jihad… warrants that one must struggle against Kufr (disbelief) and Shirk (polytheism) and the worship of falsehood in all its forms. Jihad has to continue until this objective is achieved.”

In a piece for Gatestone Institute last October, Canadian terrorism expert Thomas Quiggin pointed to the enabling of, and contribution to, the rise of Islamic radicalism by Prime Minister Trudeau himself. According to Quiggin, Trudeau lauded a mosque in Ottawa, whose imam is part of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, an organization that was placed on the United Arab Emirates list of designated terrorist organizations in 2014. Trudeau called the mosque a shining example of “diversity… within the Muslim community in Canada.”

Two months later, during the days prior to and following the Quebec City mosque attack, a survey revealed that more than half of the citizens of Canada and Quebec consider the presence of Muslims to be a security concern. An even greater majority said they support some form of vetting of immigrants to test their appreciation for Canadian values, and believe that immigrants should integrate into and adopt Canadian culture once they settle in the country.

In this context, the passage by the Canadian Liberal Party establishment of Motion 103, pushed and backed by influential Muslims with radical records, was a slap in the face to democracy — just as its opponents have been claiming.

Salman Rushdie Reveals the Power of Today’s Islamism

September 9, 2016

Salman Rushdie Reveals the Power of Today’s Islamism, Counter JihadBruce Cornibe, September 8, 2016

Author Salman Rushdie, of the controversial novel The Satanic Verses, has spent a large stint underground being protected by the British government.  This is because he allegedly blasphemed Islam’s prophet  Muhammad. Rushdie, whose life has been greatly affected by Sharia inspired laws, is speaking out against the politically correct climate of our time, The Washington Times reports:

“Today, I would be accused of Islamophobia and racism. People would say I had attacked a cultural minority,” the writer [said].  He cited as an example of the change the handling of Charlie Hebdo, where an often scabrous satirical newspaper was threatened for years by Islamists and eventually numerous employees there were killed in a terrorist attack.

“Instead of responding to attacks against freedom of expression, voices were raised to decry blasphemy and to propose compromise with terrorism. There is no blasphemy in a democracy,” Mr. Rushdie said.

In the interview, the writer decried the reluctance of Western governments to use the words “Muslim” or “Islam,” preferring instead to attribute terrorist attacks to “unbalanced” people or to a generic thing like “radicalism” or “extremism,” even when the attackers themselves say Islam is their motive.

The ‘Islamophobia’ narrative that seeks to silence any kind of criticism of Islam is in fact a type of anti-blasphemy tactic used by Islamists. Quran 33:57 states, “Indeed, those who abuse Allah and His Messenger – Allah has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and prepared for them a humiliating punishment.” The worst part is that prominent institutions and figures are pushing this narrative. The University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Race & Gender (CRG), has even released an “Islamophobia Reporting App” for one’s cell phone. The same CRG, whose definition of ‘Islamophobia’ includes, “a perceived or real Muslim threat[.]” Also, one can speculate that London’s new Islamic mayor, Sadiq Khan, is going to try and target critics of Islamic doctrine in his effort to police “online hate crimes[.]”

Rushdie also makes good points about the dangerous atmosphere caused by Islamists leading up to the Charlie Hebdo attack in January 2015, and the failure of many Western leaders to call out Islamic terrorism by name. The Obama Administration’s response, or lack thereof, after the attack is pretty telling of its hesitancy to confront Islamic terrorism – the U.S. President and top-ranking U.S. officials didn’t join the Hebdo rally in Paris. Whether President Obama approves of the provocative magazine or not, he needs to still stand in solidarity against terrorism and the shedding of innocent blood.

This hyper-sensitivity against offending Islam not only shows religious favoritism to a particular group in society but also enables the Islamists and jihadists to advance their Sharia agenda. If the Salman Rushdie case and others like Charlie Hebdo do not awaken the West to action, then we can continue to watch our Western civilization and its liberties slowly vanish.

Blasphemy Convictions Intensify in Sisi’s Egypt

April 7, 2016

Blasphemy Convictions Intensify in Sisi’s Egypt, Front Page MagazineRaymond Ibrahim, April 7, 2017

(The author demands that President Sisi “do something,” but does not specify what he, as the president, is in a position to do legally. He does not control Al-Azhar University, nor can he require the courts to interpret or enforce the law as he wishes. He became Egypt’s president because millions of Egyptians were tired of his dictatorial predecessor. Would the author like to see Sisi emulate Morsi?

Egypt is an Islamic nation; Sisi can’t change that. At best, he can try to precipitate a gradual Islamic reformation.– DM)


Despite Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s many pluralistic words and gestures—which have won him much praise from the nation’s Christians and moderates—he appeases the Islamist agenda in one very clear way: by allowing the controversial defamation of religions law, colloquially known as the “blasphemy law,” to target Christians and moderates in ways arguably worse than under the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi.

Late last February, three Christian teenagers were jailed for five years for breaking the defamation of religions law. A fourth defendant, 15, was handed a juvenile detention for an indefinite period.   Earlier they were detained for 45 days and subjected to “ill-treatment” said a human rights group.

Their crime is to have made a 20-second video on a mobile phone mocking the Islamic State—which has been interpreted as mocking Islam.   In the video, the boys appear laughing and joking, as they pretend to be ISIS members praying and slitting throats.  The Egyptian Commission for Rights and Freedoms, an independent rights group, confirmed that the four teenagers were performing scenes “imitating slaughter carried out by terrorist groups.”  Even so, according to their defense lawyer, Maher Naguib, the Christian youth “have been sentenced for contempt of Islam and inciting sectarian strife…. The judge didn’t show any mercy. He handed down the maximum punishment.”

Considering that even Al Azhar—the Islamic world’s most prestigious university located in Egypt—refuses to denounce the Islamic State as being un-Islamic, it is unsurprising that mockery of ISIS is being conflated with mockery of Islam.

The Christian youth made the brief video back in January 2015, when three of them were aged 17 and one 15.  It is believed that the court kept delaying their case till the three 17-year-olds became 18, so they could receive the full penalty.  Their teacher who also appeared in the video had earlier been sentenced to three years in jail.

Several other Christians have been prosecuted for insulting Islam and Muslims under Sisi’s tenure.  One young Christian man was sentenced to six years for “liking” an Arabic-language Facebook page administered by Muslim converts to Christianity.  A female Christian teacher was imprisoned for six months after Muslim parents accused her of insulting Islam and evangelizing.  Bishoy Armia Boulous, a Muslim convert to Christianity, remains behind bars on, according to his lawyer, trumped up charges of blasphemy.

While Christian minorities are the most prone to being targeted by the blasphemy law, secular Muslim thinkers and writers are also on the hit list.  Late last January, female Muslim writer Fatima Naoot was sentenced to three years in prison after she criticized the sadistic slaughter of animals that takes place during the Islamic festival, Eid al-Adha.  The month before that, in December, television host Islam al-Behairy was sentenced to one year in prison for questioning the validity of some of the sayings (hadiths) attributed to Muslim prophet Muhammad.

Although Egypt’s constitution outlaws the “defamation of religions,” the plural indicates that, along with Islam, Judaism and Christianity are protected.   In reality, however, the law is almost exclusively used to prosecute Christian minorities and secular Muslims.   Despite the fact that there are many more Muslims than Christians in Egypt, rarely are Islamists arrested and prosecuted for defaming Christianity.

In this, Egypt is becoming more like Pakistan.  Although that nation also prohibits the defamation of religions—which technically includes Christianity—only Christians and moderates are targeted and imprisoned; some, like Asia Bibi, a wife and mother, are on death row.  Conversely, Muslims who openly defame Christianity—and they are many—are regularly let off one way or the other.  A few weeks ago a Muslim broke into a church and proceeded to burn its Bibles.  Although several Christians caught and handed him over to police, the latter claimed he was mentally unstable and could not stand trial.  Earlier, a Muslim shopkeeper started selling shoes which depict the Christian cross on their soles.  Christians demonstrated but police did nothing.

On January 26, soon after the sentencing of the writer Fatima Naoot, another moderate Muslim and television host in Egypt, Ibrahim Eissa, scathingly criticized the Sisi government, including by saying that “there have been more blasphemy cases and convictions during the Sisi era than during the Morsi era.”  He continued:

There is no greater contradiction between what the [Egyptian] state says and claims about itself and the reality on the ground…  The Egyptian state is schizophrenic because it says what it does not do….  It’s amazing and baffling to see a state who’s president regularly preaches about the need for religious discourse and renewal—and yet, during Sisi’s 18-19 month tenure, the nation has witnessed more reports, cases and convictions, and the imprisonment of writers, in the name of defamation religions than during the one year tenure of the Muslim Brotherhood president….  The [Sisi] revolution dropped the Brotherhood but kept the ideology unchanged.

Canada: The Spanish Inquisition Makes a Comeback

September 15, 2015

Canada: The Spanish Inquisition Makes a Comeback, Gatestone InstituteDouglas Murray, September 15, 2015

(It’s not really funny, but perhaps this may make up for it.

— DM)

  • Some readers will remember the disputes during the last decade when the journalists were hauled before the farcical “Human Rights Commissions” of Canada and asked to explain why they had ever said anything that the state commissars did not agree with. Best of all is that the members of the Commission do not have to wait for anybody to complain to them before they act.
  • The Commission is allowed to head out all by itself and search for things that are offensive. One must wonder whether it may just – wholly unforeseeably – be a government department which continuously finds work to justify its existence?
  • The Tribunal is planning to keep a publicly available list of people found guilty of “hate speech” — like a sex-offender database. Presumably this means that members of the public can check that they are not living in the proximity of anybody who is likely to express him-or-herself with words.
  • I am sure that Monsieur Fremont will agree that the safest thing to do is either not to report an attack on the Canadian Parliament or to ensure that all papers or individuals who mention such an attack are immediately fined $10,000 and put on the Hate-Speech-offenders list for doing so.
  • The Human Rights Tribunal will be able to decide on each occasion how much money it wants. Might it not in fact be more convenient for the Tribunals if they simply put all writers on a system of direct-debit and levy the fine on absolutely everyone after any terrorist attack?
  • We had hoped that the country had learned that for most of the civilized world, blasphemy laws are meant to be a thing of the past. But after the latest events in Quebec, we will no longer be fooled. The whole world will be able to see that in Canada blasphemy laws are a thing of the future.

Think back twenty years and imagine that someone then had told you that developed Western democracies would spend the first decades of the twenty-first century introducing new blasphemy laws. “You mean ‘repealing’ surely?” your wise younger self would probably have said. And if you had been persuaded that, no, new blasphemy laws really were going to be brought into effect in the not-too-distant future, doubtless your follow-on question would have been, “So how did the Spanish inquisition manage to make such a comeback?”

The latest country to attempt – yet again – to impose new blasphemy laws in the twenty-first century is Canada. I say “yet again” because some readers will remember the disputes during the last decade when the journalists Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant and others were hauled before the farcical “Human Rights Commissions” of Canada and asked to explain why they had ever said anything that the state commissars did not agree with. Those Commissions soon became a focus of everybody around the world who cares about free speech. The site of a dreary bureaucrat asking journalists to explain why they had felt impelled to write something truly began to look like tragedy repeated not as farce but as mind-numbing proceduralism.

But now the worst Canadian idea of modern times appears to be back. The Quebec National Assembly is currently considering a bill that would criminalize any criticism of Islam and redesignate it as “hate speech.” Bill 59 – as this latest totalitarian procedure is titled – is being proposed by the Minister of Justice, Stephanie Vallee; and the head of the Quebec Human Rights Commission, Jacques Fremont, has already been quoted saying that he looks forward to using the new powers to target “people who would write against… the Islamic religion… on a website or on a Facebook page.”

It is possible that the whole thing is simply a money-making exercise – a more refined version of the old trick of putting up tiny speeding signs and then squeezing the cash out of every unwitting transgressor. After all, the QHRC will be able to apply for a court order “requiring [the culprit] to cease” his speech and will also be able to impose a fine of up to $10,000 for having “disseminated such speech.” The Human Rights Tribunal will be able to decide on each occasion how much money it wants.

1245Jacques Fremont, head of the Quebec Human Rights Commission, has been quoted saying that he will use his new powers to target “people who would write against… the Islamic religion… on a website or on a Facebook page.” (Image source: CRDP video screenshot)

The law is so bad, the bureaucrats involved so dispiritingly awful, that it really is enough to make one move to Canada to help bring this awful law crashing down Even if you have never previously been to the country, any self-respecting free speech warrior will surely be feeling this same instinct. Certainly there will be unpleasant times ahead. The Tribunal is planning to keep a publicly available list of people found guilty of “hate speech” — like a sex-offender database. Presumably this means that members of the public can check that they are not living in the proximity of anybody who is likely to express him-or-herself with words. So we might all have to be put either in some free speech ghetto where nice happy Canadians who don’t like free expression don’t have to hear us. Or perhaps we will have to fan out and be distributed across the country, so long as we stay far enough away from any places of learning, radio studios and the like. Best of all is that the members of the Commission do not have to wait for anybody to complain to them before they act. The Commission is allowed to head out and search for things that are offensive all by itself. One must wonder whether they may just – wholly unforeseeably – be a government department which continuously finds work to justify its existence?

The first test might be to see whether we are able to identify why Michael Zehaf-Bibeau stormed the Ottawa Parliament last year and shot a Canadian soldier on ceremonial duty at the nation’s war memorial. It is hard to see how any reporting of this attack could not in some way be deemed offensive to some Muslim somewhere or to some portion of the Islamic faith, and so I am sure that Monsieur Fremont will agree that the safest thing to do is either not to report an attack on the Canadian Parliament or to ensure that all papers or individuals who mention such an attack are immediately fined $10,000 and put on the Hate-Speech-offenders list for doing so. Might it not in fact be more convenient for the Tribunals if they simply put all writers on a system of direct-debit and levy the fine on absolutely everyone after any terrorist attack?

But then we can start to ask all the questions we have all gotten so used to not being able to ask in recent years. Will Monsieur Fremont and Minister Vallee allow anybody to write about contemporary anti-Semitism or the most virulent forms of contemporary homophobia? Admittedly these are minority interests and would never come under the purview of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals, but they may come up at some point on somebody’s social media profile or the national press. In which case, will the relevant authorities ensure that no gay or Jewish person is allowed to identify this phenomenon? Or if someone does, will it be possible to ensure that he desists through a system of fines and list-shaming?

In the last decade, the Canadian system made itself look a fool to the world. We had hoped that the country had learned that for most of the civilized world blasphemy laws are meant to be a thing of the past. But after the latest events in Quebec we will no longer be fooled. The whole world will be able to see that in Canada blasphemy laws are a thing of the future.

Barack Obama’s Unholy Alliance: A Romance With Islamism

June 26, 2015

Barack Obama’s Unholy Alliance: A Romance With Islamism, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, June 26, 2015

(But Obama can make everything right by restraining carbon dioxide emissions but not The Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear weaponization. Right? DM)

Toward the end of September 2012, Barack Obama finally came to New York City after skipping it during the 9/11 anniversary. He had made it out to the city the previous week for a celebrity fundraiser and an appearance on Letterman[1] and then back again for a taping of The View while turning down a meeting with Netanyahu who did not have a talk show or an envelope filled with money.[2]

The next day, while at least one of the Americans killed in Benghazi had yet to be buried,[3] he declared at the UN General Assembly, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”[4]

That statement also encompassed the agenda of the Benghazi killers, the terrorists who would attack Charlie Hebdo and the “Draw the Prophet” contest in Texas along with all the murderous censors of Mohammed determined that the future should not belong to those who slander their holy warlord.

It was Obama’s only mention of “Islam” in a speech addressing the brutal murder of four Americans by Islamic terrorists in a terror campaign targeting American diplomatic facilities on the anniversary of the original 9/11 attacks in Benghazi. The 9/11 attacks, like so many others, had begun with a cry of “Allahu Akbar.”[5]

When the killing in Benghazi was done, the Jihadists left behind the slogan “Allahu Akbar” or “Allah is Greater” scrawled on the walls of the American compound.[6] These were the same words that Obama had recited “with a first-rate accent” for the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof. Obama had called it “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth.”[7] On that too, the murderers of four Americans agreed with him.

Those who disagreed and were to be denied a future included Mark Basseley Youssef, a Coptic Christian, whose YouTube trailer for a movie critical of Islam was blamed by the administration for the attacks.

Two days after Obama’s UN speech, Youssef was arrested and held without bail. The order for his arrest came from the top. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had told Charles Woods, the father of murdered SEAL Tyrone Woods, “We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.”[8]

The ACLU, which had developed deep Islamist connections,[9] sent a letter to Hillary Clinton thanking her for her support of freedom of speech.[10]

The Supreme Court’s “Miracle Decision”[11] had thrown out a blasphemy ban for movies, but Obama’s new unofficial blasphemy ban targeted only those movies that offended Islam. The government had joined the terrorists in seeking to deny such movies and their creators a future.

At the United Nations, Obama had compared the filmmaker to the terrorists. He had used a Gandhi quote to assert that, “Intolerance is itself a form of violence.”[12] Americans who criticized Islam’s violent tendencies could be considered as bad as Muslim terrorists and if intolerance of Islam was a form of violence, then it could be criminalized and suppressed. That became the administration’s priority.

It took the administration years to make its first arrest of a Benghazi perpetrator,[13] but only days to urge Google to take down the Innocence of Muslims video[14] and weeks to arrest the man behind it.

In a little over a week, there was already a State Department apology video airing in Pakistan.[15] It took until the next month for the United States to even get access to the Benghazi compound.[16] Instead of going on the offensive against the attackers, Obama went on the offensive against critics of Islam.

His administration not only blamed a YouTube video to distract from its failures in Benghazi, but to exploit the crisis in order to suppress the truth about Islamic terrorism.

Obama had illegally fought a war to aid Islamic terrorists and was covering up his role in the Islamization of Libya by the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda[17] and eventually even ISIS.[18] He exploited a terrorist attack against Americans caused by his Islamization of Libya to advance the Islamization of America.

The new Islamized Libya, where Christians were beheaded and churches were bombed,[19] was what a nation that denied the future to those who did not accept the prophet of Islam really looked like.

Obama’s Islamist regime change had denied the Christians and non-Muslims of Libya a future. Among those non-Muslims who lost their future in Libya were four murdered Americans.

At the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama attacked Christianity for the Crusades in the presence of the foreign minister of Sudan, a genocidal government whose Muslim Brotherhood leader had massacred so many Christians and others that he had been indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.[20] [21] And he told Christians that they were obligated to condemn insults to Islam.[22]

Some persecuted Christians could flee to America, but where would they flee to when Obama began denying a future to those who did not accept the moral and religious authority of the prophet of Islam?

Benghazi was not the first Islamic terror attack against Americans, but it was the first time that our government responded in the Islamic fashion by locking up a Christian for blaspheming against Islam.

Blaming the video turned a public relations disaster into a policy win. The blame was shifted from Obama’s backing for Islamist regime change in Libya to critics of Islam. Not only was the cause of the attack covered up, but Obama’s ideological agenda was advanced by an attack he had helped cause.

Stand With the Muslims

Our current conflict with Islamic terrorists is not caused by joblessness, poverty, the climate, dictators or any of the other familiar excuses. Instead it’s caused by the unholy alliance between Islam and the left.

Obama embodied that unholy alliance as no other occupant of the Oval Office since Carter had.

When discussing Muslim complaints about FBI counterterrorism operations, Obama believed that they needed assurances that, “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”[23] Counterterrorism with its emphasis on exposing plots and potential terrorists singled out Muslims. His preferred form of counterterrorism empowered Islamists while shifting the blame to Americans.

Muslims did not need to change who they were to reject terrorism. Americans instead had to Islamize. The source of tension was not Muslim terrorism, but American ignorance and prejudice toward Islam.

Obama insisted that Americans needed to educate themselves on Islam because their country was “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” Not only was his claim false,[24] but it implied that America needed to be defined by Islam and that Americans needed to integrate Islam into their own identity.

As he put it in Cairo, “Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”[25]

The Obama model did not require that Americans become Muslims, but that they make Islam a part of their culture so that, like him,   they would be able to quote the Koran or recite the Islamic call to prayer.

Obama rejected the secular common ground championed by European republics. Secularism had been used in America to limit the presence of Christianity and Judaism in public life, but the left did not accept its logic of neutral spaces when it came to Islam. Islam was treated as a culture rather than a religion. Excluding Christianity excluded a belief. Excluding Islam, unacceptably excluded a culture and a race. The new diverse American identity being constructed by the left would not be truly diverse without Islam.

If France insisted on being a secular republic, America would at least partially become a Muslim country.

After the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Obama’s failure to attend the Unity March put Islamist feelings ahead of freedom of speech. Instead his administration tried to shift attention to a Countering Violent Extremism summit stacked with Islamists[26] [27] as its preferred response to Islamic terrorism.

The White House had previously been critical of Hebdo’s Mohammed cartoons.[28] While it still paid lip service to freedom of speech, in Paris, Benghazi and Garland[29] Islam came ahead of universal freedoms.

During the Cairo speech, Obama had explicitly rejected the French secular formula, stating, “It is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.”

“Likewise, we can’t disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism,” he added.[30]

Christians, whose ability to practice their religion has been unprecedentedly attacked under his administration, might have found that statement disingenuous, but it was an exemption exclusively extended to Muslims. His administration might repress Christianity, but never Islam. While it accused Christians of discrimination, it fought for the Islamic right to discriminate against women.

Obama did not acknowledge the Islamic violence and repression against women that was the true basis for France’s Burqa ban. One survey had found that 77 percent of girls in France who wore the Hijab did so because of threats from Islamist groups.[31] He also ignored the growing problem of Muslim honor killings[32] and female genital mutilation (FGM) in the United States. The half-million girls and women in this country at risk for FGM[33]mattered less than enforcing Islamist standards for covering up women.

While his administration vigorously targeted any employer or school that interfered with the wearing of the Hijab,[34] [35] it showed no similar dedication in any campaign against FGM or honor killings of women.

Like the Saudi religious police who wanted to let teenage girls burn rather than allow them to escape without proper Islamic covering,[36] Obama placed the Hijab above the lives of Muslim women and girls.

The administration had made the decision to protect Islamic sexism, rather than Muslim women.

While the administration cracked down on nuns, it was suing towns over zoning ordinances that interfered with building mega-mosques.[37] [38] [39]Even though the regulations did not single out mosques or Islam, the administration stepped in specifically when Islamists wanted to bully Americans.

If the French still clung to the idea of a secular republic, Obama had chosen to Islamize America. Those who resisted were faced with huge fines and even prison. America might not be one of the world’s biggest Muslim countries, but under Obama it was beginning to act more like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

In Cairo, Obama had declared that, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”[40]

He had committed to waging a constant campaign against those who spoke out against Islam.

By the time that the Benghazi attacks took place, the pattern of promoting Islam, denying Islamic terrorism and silencing critics had become the administration’s twisted version of counterterrorism.

This brand of counterterrorism insisted that the biggest threat was not the terrorists, but the truth. Identifying Islamic terrorists as such would increase Muslim alienation and terrorist recruitment. There was nothing violent about Islam and yet videos and cartoons offensive to Islam could not be tolerated because they would lead to violence; a violence whose Islamic nature would be fervently denied.

Muslim terrorist groups, from ISIS on down, were deemed un-Islamic. Lone wolf attackers were characterized as ignorant of Islam. To disagree was to aid the terrorists, as Obama’s aides suggested.[41] Counterterrorism came to mean lying about Islam. Anyone who defined the problem could, like the “Draw the Prophet” cartoonists in Texas or Mark Basseley Youssef, be accused of having caused it.

The lie could not be challenged or the bombs would go off. Tell the truth and the terrorists win.

Countering Violent Extremism (CVE), the administration’s alternative to European integration, outsourced domestic counterterrorism policy to the Muslim Brotherhood’s front groups and transformed pandering to them into the core of our domestic counterterrorism strategy.[42]

Violent extremism was a vague and undefined term. Countering it was an even more vague and undefined policy that had far less to do with phoning tips to the FBI, an act that CAIR, a leading administration Muslim Brotherhood ally, had come out against,[43] than with promoting Islam.

Since Islamic terrorism was un-Islamic, promoting Islam was the best means of fighting Islamic radicalization. The terrorists had “perverted” Islam and had to be countered with authentic Islam.[44] Radicalization was caused by Muslim alienation and the only cure for it was Islamizing America.

CVE could Islamize unlikely agencies of the United States government by redirecting their priorities. When Obama told the NASA Administrator that one of his top priorities had to be making Muslims “feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering” that was CVE in action.[45]

A CVE conference held the day after Benghazi promoted touring Muslim rappers associated with a Muslim Brotherhood front group who were sponsored by the State Department.[46] [47] [48] [49] Money that should have been used to secure Americans at risk in Benghazi was wasted on Islamist self-promotion.

It was speculated that possibly hundreds of millions of dollars were being thrown at CVE activities.[50] And CVE had not only failed in its mission, but invariably mainstreamed the worst elements in Islam.

By the post-Hebdo CVE conference, the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications had been turned over[51] to Rashad Hussain, a Muslim Brotherhood linked official,[52] and before long its “Think Again Turn Away” Twitter account was promoting everything from anti-Semitism to Al Qaeda.[53] [54] [55]

Meanwhile, echoing Obama’s mandate to “educate ourselves more effectively on Islam,”[56] the educational system was being bent to promote the practice of Islam to American children.[57]

Parents across the country discovered that schools were taking their children to mosques where they were being taught to participate in Islamic worship.[58] After American soldiers had fought to liberate Afghan women, American girls in this country were being dressed in burqas.[59]

Obama had told a Cairo audience, which included the Muslim Brotherhood, that he was rejecting the French model of protecting women from Islamic coercion. Instead the United States had adopted the Brotherhood’s model of urging American women to adopt Islamist practices.

His idea of standing with the Muslims was transforming counterterrorism into a tool of Islamization.

The Brotherhood Administration

In August 2013, Al-Wafd, a paper linked to one of Egypt’s more liberal parties which supports equal rights for women and Christians, accused Obama of having close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. [60]

A year earlier, Rose El-Youssef magazine, founded by an early Egyptian feminist, had compiled a list of six Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the administration.[61] [62]

Beyond Huma Abedin, Hillary’s close confidante and aide, the list included; Arif Alikhan, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Policy Development; Mohammed Elibiary, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council; Rashad Hussain, formerly the U.S. Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference and currently the Coordinator for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications; Salam al-Marayati, co-founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC); Imam Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and Eboo Patel, a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships.

These were the types of accusations that the media tended to dismissively associate with the right, but both Egyptian publications were on the other side of the spectrum.

Egyptian liberals were the ones brandishing placards of a bearded Kerry in Taliban clothes or a photoshopped Obama with a Salafist beard. The protesters Obama had supposedly sought to support by calling for Mubarak to step down were crowding the streets accusing him of backing terrorists.

What made the Egyptian liberals who had seen America as their ally in pursuing reform come to view it as an enemy? The angry Egyptian protesters were accusing Obama of supporting a dictator; the original sin of American foreign policy that his Cairo Speech and the Arab Spring had been built on rejecting.

The progressive critiques of American foreign policy insisted that we were hated for supporting dictators. Now their own man was actually hated for supporting a Muslim Brotherhood dictator.

By 2014, 85% of Egyptians disliked America. Only 10% still rated America favorably.[63] It was a shift from the heady days of the Arab Spring when America had slid into positive numbers for the first time.[64]

Obama had run for office promising to repair our image abroad. As a candidate, he had claimed that other countries believed that “America is part of what has gone wrong in our world.” And yet the true wrongness was present in that same speech when he urged, “a new dawn in the Middle East.”[65]

That dawn came with the light of burning churches at the hands of Muslim Brotherhood supporters. Under Obama, America really did become part of what had gone wrong by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a crime that Obama will not admit to and that the media will not report on.

The Muslim Brotherhood was born out of Egypt and yet Egyptian views of it are dismissed by the media. Despite the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s final orgy of brutality as President Mohammed Morsi clung to power, despite the burning churches and tortured protesters, it is still described as “moderate.”

Morsi, who had called on Egyptians to nurse their children on hatred of the Jews,[66] was a moderate. Sheikh Rachid al-Ghannouchi, the leader of Ennahda, the Tunisian flavor of the Muslim Brotherhood, who had called for the extermination of the Jews “male, female and children,”[67] was also a “moderate.” Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, went one better with a fatwa approving even the murder of unborn Jews.[68] Qaradawi was another moderate.[69]

The only Muslim Brotherhood leader who hasn’t been described as a moderate is Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir, who has been indicted by the ICC for genocide and crimes against humanity.[70]

But if the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t a moderate organization, if it is indeed violent and bigoted, why did Obama alienate Egyptians and others across the region by supporting it? The angry Egyptians in the street had an explanation, but they had failed to understand how deeply the infiltration truly went.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s front groups, such as the MSA and CAIR, had become so entangled with the left that it was impossible for the latter to wash its hands of the former. Not only the administration, but its political allies on the left, such as the Center for American Progress[71] and the ACLU[72], had been infiltrated by Islamists. The administration’s infiltration was a symptom of the problem, not its cause.

Obama sits at the center of a web of intertwined progressive organizations. This web has infiltrated the government and it in turn has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Consider the case of Faiz Shakir, who went from the Harvard Islamic Society where he helped fundraise for a Muslim Brotherhood front group funneling money to Hamas, the local Muslim Brotherhood franchise, to Editor-in-Chief and Vice President at the Center for American Progress, heading up the nerve center of the left’s messaging apparatus, to a Senior Adviser to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and then Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.[73] The next step after that is the White House.

Time magazine described the Center for American Progress as Obama’s idea factory, crediting it with forming his talking points and his government.[74] In an administration powered by leftist activists, the integration between the Muslim Brotherhood and the left resulted in a pro-Brotherhood policy.

Egyptian liberals had expected that the administration’s withdrawal of support for Mubarak would benefit them, but the American left had become far closer to the Muslim Brotherhood than to them. Instead of aiding the left, it aided the Brotherhood. The Egyptian liberals were a world away while the Brotherhood’s activists sat in the left’s offices and spoke in the name of all the Muslims in America.

The left had made common cause with the worst elements in the Muslim world. It formed alliances with Muslim Brotherhood groups, accepting them as the only valid representatives of Muslim communities while denouncing their critics, both Muslim and non-Muslim, as Islamophobes.

The Arab Spring disaster, from the Muslim Brotherhood brutality in Egypt and Tunisia, the bloody civil war in Libya to the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, was the fruit of this tainted red-green alliance.

The four Americans murdered in Benghazi, the American hostages beheaded by ISIS along with the countless Christians, Yazidis and others butchered, raped and enslaved had fallen victim to the left’s support for the Brotherhood’s political ambitions, tyrannies and holy wars.

The Brotherhood Spring

“What we are witnessing these days of consecutive revolutions is a great and glorious event, and it is most probable, according to reality and history, that it will encompass the majority of the Islamic world with the will of Allah, and thanks to Allah things are strongly heading towards the exit of Muslims from being under the control of America,” Osama bin Laden wrote of the Arab Spring.[75]

“The fall of the remaining tyrants in the region became a must with the will of Allah, and it was the beginning of a new era for the whole nation,” he added.[76]

What was happening though had less to do with the will of Allah and more to do with the will of Obama.

Allah had not come down to Cairo to cut Arab allies loose, nor did he reserve seats for the Muslim Brotherhood or force regime change.[77] Osama credited Allah, but he really should have thanked Obama.

Both Obama and Osama agreed on the need to remove the current leaders of allied Arab governments and both men saw the Arab Spring as a vindication of their visions for the future. But the wave of new Islamist governments friendly to terrorists that swept across the region vindicated Osama, not Obama.

In Tunisia, the birthplace of the Arab Spring, Sheikh Rashid al-Ghannouchi , the leader of the Islamist Ennahda party, who had once declared that “Crusader America” was the “enemy of Islam”[78] had come into his own. In the past he had been denied a visa to enter the United States,[79] but in the age of Obama he was feted at an event attended by, among others, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State.[80]

Only a few years earlier, he had stated that the Arab Spring would “threaten the extinction of Israel.”[81]

“The Arab region will get rid of the bacillus of Israel. Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the leader of Hamas, said that Israel will disappear by the year 2027. I say that this date may be too far away, and Israel may disappear before this. “[82]

The Sheikh had already called for the mass murder of Jews, stating that, “There are no civilians in Israel. The population—males, females and children—are the army reserve soldiers, and thus can be killed.”[83]

Once in power, Ennahda chose to turn a blind eye to Islamist violence.[84] On September 11, 2012, as the Jihadist attacks on American embassies and diplomatic missions swept around the Muslim world, the embassy in Tunis came under attack. And help didn’t come from the Ennahda government.

Instead Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was forced to place an urgent phone call to the secular president, a ceremonial position in Tunisia, who dispatched his own presidential guard to protect the embassy.[85] An ungrateful Hillary then delivered a speech praising the Islamists and thanking the Islamist government, rather than the president, who had risked his own safety to protect the embassy.[86]

The attack and the response by Tunisia’s Islamist government should have been anticipated.

In the past, Sheikh Rashid al-Ghannouchi had urged, “We must wage unceasing war against the Americans until they leave the land of Islam, or we will burn and destroy all their interests across the entire Islamic world.”[87]

That was exactly what the Jihadists had attempted to do on September 11, 2012 in Tunis and across the region with the complicity of the new Arab Spring governments Obama had helped bring to power.

A similar pattern of complicity emerged in Egypt where the attackers were allowed to scale the walls of the American Embassy in Cairo.[88] While the worst attack of that day took place in Benghazi, where Jihadists were in control of the city, in Tunis and Cairo a different breed of Jihadists had become the government and they had little interest in defending American lives or property.

While much of the controversy over the murder of four Americans in Benghazi has centered around the failure by the State Department to secure the diplomatic mission, that attack and many of the others came out of a volatile environment created by the empowerment of Islamists through the Arab Spring.

Nowhere was there more at stake for Obama’s “New Beginning” with the Islamists than in Cairo, but by reaching out to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, he was coming dangerously close to Al Qaeda.

The State Department’s 2008 strategic assessment stated that, “Although Usama bin Ladin remained the group’s ideological figurehead, Zawahiri has emerged as AQ’s strategic and operational planner.”[89] Even Osama bin Laden had been a Muslim Brotherhood member,[90] but after his death the organization’s leadership would become a more purely Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood affair.

Saif al Adel, the interim Emir of Al Qaeda, and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current Al Qaeda leader, were products of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and its splinter group, Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The brother of the Al Qaeda chief, Mohammed al-Zawahiri, helped organize the attack on the American embassy in Cairo[91] and allegedly engaged in discussions with Mohammed Morsi over an alliance with Al Qaeda.[92]

The Egyptian Islamic Jihad, a Muslim Brotherhood splinter group which merged with Al Qaeda, later reemerged under different leadership as the Islamic Party while the terrorist group Gamaa Islamiya or the Islamic Group formed the Building and Development Party and allied with Morsi.

Morsi pardoned Mostafa Hamza[93] who had ordered Gamaa Islamiya’s Luxor Massacre in which terrorists mutilated and disemboweled European and Japanese visitors. The massacre was reportedly arranged by Ayman al-Zawahiri and funded by Osama bin Laden.[94] Morsi’s alliance with the terror group even led him to attempt to appoint a Gamaa Islamiya member as Governor of Luxor.[95]

Even though Gamaa Islamiya was still listed as a terrorist group, one of its lawmakers, Hani Nour Eldin, received a visa to enter the United States and met with senior Obama administration officials including then Deputy National Security Adviser and current White House Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough.[96]

The terrorist asked McDonough about releasing Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the infamous Blind Sheikh who was the leader of Gamaa Islamiya, serving a life sentence for plotting attacks across New York City, after his followers bombed the World Trade Center.[97] Shortly thereafter, Morsi told a cheering crowd that he would work to free Rahman. The State Department was reportedly considering the deal.[98]

The thin firewall between the supposed extremists and moderates, between the political Islamists and the terrorists, between the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda, had worn so thin that it barely existed. Instead members of terrorist groups were running Egypt and openly petitioning the United States to free the figure most closely associated with the World Trade Center bombing in the minds of Americans.

And yet despite the Muslim Brotherhood’s torture and killing of protesters, its alignment with its fellow Hamas terrorists in Gaza and its flirtation with Al Qaeda and Iran, Obama continued to support it.

After videos surfaced of Morsi calling for the destruction of Israel and urging hatred of Jews as a form of worship of Allah, Secretary of State John Kerry defended the transfer of F-16 fighter jets to his regime.

“Not everything lends itself to a simple classification, black or white,” Kerry said. “We have critical interests with Egypt.[99]

Statements like “Resistance is the correct and only way to free the land from the filth of the Jews”[100] should have been easy to classify, but instead the Muslim Brotherhood’s anti-Semitism became a matter of ambiguity and nuance for an administration determined to continue aiding the terror group.

“President Morsi has issued two statements,” Kerry said, “to clarify those comments and we had a group of senators who met with him the other day who spent a good part of the conversation in relatively heated discussion with him about it.”[101]

Kerry neglected to mention that during the “heated discussion,” Morsi had suggested that the criticism was only taking place because the American media was under the control of the Jews.[102]

While Kerry had insisted at the time that the weapons transfers were necessary to safeguard American interests in Egypt and even help Israel, when another popular uprising toppled Morsi and replaced him with a new non-Islamist government, delivery of the jets was put on hold.[103] [104] This move made it clear that Obama and Kerry had not sought to supply the jets to Egypt, but to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Arab Spring had been intended as a vehicle for bringing the Muslim Brotherhood and its allied Islamists to power, not only in Tunisia and Egypt, but across the region.

Backing for Gaddafi’s overthrow had been bought by the shift of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group from Al Qaeda to the Muslim Brotherhood under the auspices of the Brotherhood’s Sheikh Qaradawi.[105] [106] When the mission in Benghazi needed protection, the task was handed to the Brotherhood’s February 17 Martyrs Brigade[107] [108] which had been employed by the National Transitional Council.[109]

Closely interrelated with Ansar Al-Sharia,[110] the Jihadists that launched the attack against the mission in Benghazi, the February 17 Martyrs Brigade has been accused of complicity in their attack.[111]

The NTC had been Obama’s choice for regime change[112] and its draft constitution stated that Sharia law would be Libya’s law.[113] The Benghazi attack was an early warning of a larger conflict that would see the Muslim Brotherhood and its Jihadist allies take control of Libya’s capital.[114] It was a battle in a larger war.

Across the Middle East, the Brotherhood reaped the political harvest of the Arab Spring.

In Morocco, the Arab Spring brought the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Justice and Development Party (PJD) to power.[115] Abdelilah Benkirane, its Head of Government, was a former member of Chabiba Islamia; an Islamist group working to create an Islamic State, some of whose members would go on to join the Al Qaeda interlinked Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group.

Like Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and Tunisia’s Ennahda, PJD was depicted as a moderate Islamist group. Little mention was made of its close ties to Hamas.[116] Benkirane had described Israel as a “hostile state”, praised Hamas and stated that Moroccans want to wage Jihad alongside the genocidal terrorists.[117]

The PJD’s 2007 platform had called for imposing Islamic law on Morocco and the destruction of Israel.[118] Even after coming to power, PJD continued to maintain close ties with Hamas. Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal attended its first conference[119] and met with Benkirane.[120]

Such relationships between Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood governments were natural and inevitable. Hamas was a fellow Muslim Brotherhood embryonic government. By aiding the rise of Muslim Brotherhood governments, Obama was creating state supporters for the anti-Semitic terror group.

In Yemen, President Ali Abdullah Saleh was ousted from power. Elections made the Brotherhood’s Al-Islah into the country’s second largest party.[121] A key figure in Al-Islah was Sheikh Zindani, an Osama bin Laden mentor listed by the US as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” who had played a role in the terrorist attack on the USS Cole and Yemen’s local September 11, 2012 attack on the US embassy. [122] [123]

The Arab Spring led to Muslim Brotherhood political victories putting the group’s various arms on a path to controlling much of the Middle East. However, they fared poorly when the political conflicts grew violent, losing to popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, to the Houthis in Yemen and to ISIS in Syria.

These conflicts often flared up when the Muslim Brotherhood showed its true colors. The Brotherhood, despite its violent rhetoric and roots, produced better manipulators than warriors. It was adept at convincing American officials, the leftist opposition, tribal leaders and freelance Jihadists to follow its agenda, but sooner or later its partners realized that it sought absolute power and could not be trusted.

Obama never realized that about the Muslim Brotherhood or perhaps he chose not to realize it.

American Guilt

Beyond the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama sought to cultivate ties with the worst elements in the region.

The common element that attracted him to the Muslim Brotherhood and the mullahs of Iran, despite their being on opposite sides of the Syrian Civil War, was their mutual enmity toward America.

While the foreign policy of the right attempts to secure national interests, the foreign policy of the left seeks to atone for national crimes. It was not strategy that drove his outreach to enemies of our country, but guilt. To the left, both the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran were victims of our foreign policy.

The Muslim Brotherhood had suffered because of our backing for Sadat and Mubarak. Iran’s clerical tyrants resented us because of our support for the Shah.

Obama had taken up the Muslim Brotherhood’s cause as far back as the 2002 anti-war speech in which he had demanded that Bush stop Mubarak from “suppressing dissent.”[124] He told his Iran negotiators to understand that the Islamic terrorist state feels “vulnerable” because of the way that America “meddled in first their democracy and then in supporting the Shah and then in supporting Iraq and Saddam during that extremely brutal war.”[125] Iran and the Brotherhood were not our enemies; they were our victims.

Any Islamic enemy of America could count on the left’s sympathy and support for its victimhood.

President Bush’s denunciation of the Axis of Evil had drawn Democrats to rally around Axis members. House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi visited Bashar Assad at a time when the Bush administration was seeking to pressure the Syrian dictator to shut down the flow of Al Qaeda suicide bombers murdering American soldiers.[126] And John Kerry became even more notorious for his serial pandering to Assad.[127]

But the left’s best efforts were reserved for the worst Islamic member of the Axis of Evil.

The Tehran Trio of three key administration foreign policy figures, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Sec-retary Chuck Hagel had become notorious for their pro-Iran advocacy before joining the admin-istration.[128] [129] The Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated the White House, but so had the Iran Lobby in the form of the American-Iranian Council.

Animated by American guilt, the left’s foreign policy demanded a constant search for enemies to empower. This disastrous policy was less pro-Muslim than it was anti-American. The alliances that it made did not follow the consistent line of Islamic theology, but the inconsistent line of appeasement.

Every enemy of America, no matter how evil, had a part to play in dismantling our national security.

Out of Gitmo

In his first election, Obama had many endorsements, but in his second election only one name counted.

During the second presidential debate, he was asked what he had done about rising prices. Obama replied that, “Osama bin Laden is dead.” When challenged on Benghazi, he again brought up bin Laden. During the first debate, he brought out bin Laden in response to a question about partisan gridlock.[130]

By the third debate, he was so drunk on secondhand heroism that he boasted that, “I said, if I got bin Laden in our sights, I would take that shot.”[131] Obama was all but starring in his own imaginary action movie. Voters were left with the impression that he had ordered the execution of the terrorist leader.

But Obama’s real plans for Osama had actually been very different. He had not intended to use him to dismantle Al Qaeda, but to dismantle Guantanamo Bay and the military commission trials of terrorists.

If Obama’s plan had succeeded, Osama’s capture would have dealt a death blow to the War on Terror.

Despite playing patriot at the debate, Obama had told the liberal readers of Vanity Fair the real story. According to the journalist who interviewed him, “Obama saw an opportunity to resurrect the idea of a criminal trial, which Attorney General Eric Holder had planned for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.”[132]

Trying a top terrorist in a civilian court had been too controversial, but capturing Osama bin Laden would have been a public relations coup that would have drowned out the protests and the criticism.

Instead of killing Osama, the goal was to bring him back and “put him on trial in a federal court.”

“I would be in a pretty strong position, politically, here, to argue that displaying due process and rule of law would be our best weapon against al-Qaeda,” Obama boasted.[133]

If Osama bin Laden had been tried in a civilian court, it would have become impossible to argue that any lesser terrorist should be kept in the Article III system. And that would have dismantled a fundamental distinction between terrorists and criminals that defined the War on Terror and infuriated Obama.

The real target of Operation Neptune Spear wasn’t bin Laden; it was Guantanamo Bay.

When the SEALs killed the Al Qaeda leader, they sabotaged Obama’s plan to try him in a civilian court and shut down military commissions trials. But Obama recovered from that setback by exploiting bin Laden’s death to secure a second term and provide political cover for his disastrous foreign policy.

Most importantly, it diverted attention from the real target, the terrorists of Guantanamo Bay.

Gitmo had been Obama’s priority from the start. During his first days in office, three out of his first five executive orders involved the Islamic terrorists locked up at Gitmo.[134] His third executive order outlawed enhanced interrogations of terrorists “to promote the safe, lawful, and humane treatment of individuals in United States custody.”[135] His fourth and fifth sought to close the prison and free its terrorists.[136] [137]

It took Obama a month to set up the Economic Recovery Advisory Board. It took him two days to set up a Special Interagency Task Force on Detainee Disposition to free Gitmo terrorists. His priority was not the economy, or even gay rights, amnesty and abortion; it was aiding Islamic terrorists.

The departure of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel made it clear just how much of a priority freeing Gitmo terrorists was for Obama. The former senator, an anti-war politician, shared Obama’s views on Iraq and Iran. But he was unwilling to free dangerous terrorists at the rapid rate that Obama wanted.

White House officials complained that “his concerns about the security risks posed by the release of detainees” had “thwarted” Obama’s plans for closing Guantanamo Bay. National Security Advisor Susan Rice was reportedly angry because Hagel had not wanted to rush through releases.[138] Hagel admitted to CNN that the White House had indeed pressured him to speed up terrorist releases.[139]

The White House had fought hard for Hagel, but when he tried to slow down the release of dangerous terrorists, he was shown the door. Obama’s highest priority for his Secretary of Defense did not involve freeing Afghans and Iraqis from the Taliban and ISIS, but freeing their Islamic terrorist allies from Gitmo.

The five Taliban commanders freed by Obama in exchange for a deserter made headlines because of the splashy White House photo op, but the administration had been quietly releasing even more dangerous men. These included Mohammed Zahir, the Secretary General of the Taliban’s Intelligence Directorate, who had been caught with nuclear materials while reportedly preparing to build an atom bomb.[140]

Even while America was trying to stop ISIS from taking over Syria and Iraq, terrorists from the Syrian Group, which had been run by the uncle of the former leader of ISIS back when it was known as Al Qaeda in Iraq, were being released. The freed terrorists had received training in everything from suicide bombing to forging documents. Some had links to terrorist attacks against Americans and America.[141]

Among those freed was Mohammed Abis Ourgy, a bomb maker who may have known ahead of time about September 11.[142]

At least two of the terrorists released by Obama had threatened to assassinate President Bush.

Adel Al-Hakeemy, a military advisor to Osama bin Laden, had threatened revenge against America and stated that he would kill President Bush if given the chance. Muhammed Ali Husayn had dispatched letters to Congress and the White House warning that they would “be destroyed, suffer and lose.”[143]

Obama was forcing the release of terrorists rated as high risk who had made specific threats against the United States. He even insisted on freeing terrorists from conflict zones such as Yemen and Syria.

His administration had freed five Yemeni terrorists, releasing four of them to neighboring Oman, which had been used as a gateway by the Charlie Hebdo attackers operating under orders from Al Qaeda in Yemen.[144] The four included an Al Qaeda veteran of the Yemeni military who was suspected of serving as a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden[145] and an Al Qaeda terrorist who had received IED training.[146]

No responsible government would have released such terrorists in the vicinity of an active war zone.

But Obama had made freeing the Jihadists of Gitmo into his highest priority. He executed his plans at the expense of our national security, our allies and the members of his own administration.

Even his greatest unintended triumph against Al Qaeda, the death of Osama bin Laden, had never been anything other than a warped attempt at freeing more Islamic terrorists from Guantanamo Bay.

A Stolen Future

Every president is the custodian of a nation and its future.

When Obama declared to the UN that the future must not belong to those who criticize Islam’s brutality, bigotry and abuse of women, he was also defining whom it must belong to. If the future must not belong to those who slander Mohammed, it will instead belong to his followers and those who respect his moral authority enough to view him as being above criticism in image, video or word.

With these words, Obama betrayed America’s heritage of freedom and announced the theft of its future. The treason of his unholy alliance with Islam not only betrays the Americans of the present, but deprives their descendants of the freedom to speak, write and believe according to their conscience.

Obama has placed the full weight of the government’s resources behind Islam. He has suppressed domestic dissent against Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood while aiding their international goals.

And by doing so, he has aided the foreign and domestic enemies of this country.

The president is more than the sum of his office. He is the man who believes most strongly in the promise of an American future. His speeches reflect the faith that we have in ourselves.

Obama is the first occupant of the White House to openly deny American Exceptionalism. Every president before him has chosen an American future. Obama chose an Islamic future instead.

It remains up to Americans to reclaim their future by exposing and breaking Obama’s unholy alliance.
























[23] The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. New York: Crown Publishers, 2006



























































[82] Ibid.



















[101] Ibid.
































[133] Ibid.









[142] Ibid.





The Failed Tactic of Flattering Islam Won’t Go Away

May 11, 2015

The Failed Tactic of Flattering Islam Won’t Go Away, Front Page Magazine, May 11, 2015


The recent attack in Texas against a “draw Mohammed” event ended up with two dead jihadis and widespread criticism of event organizer Pamela Geller for “inciting” or “provoking” the assault on our First Amendment right to free speech. The hypocrisies and ignorance behind such criticism have been amply documented, including by some on the left. But there’s another argument against actions and events like Geller’s that needs dismantling. This is the received wisdom that we should avoid criticizing Islamic doctrine or Mohammed because it will alienate moderate Muslims who otherwise would help us against the so-called “extremist” jihadists.

Geraldo Rivera on Fox News invoked this rationale in his hysterical attack on Geller for “spewing her hatred and making us all look like the intolerant jerks they are saying we are in the Middle East and elsewhere.” In other words, most Muslims dislike the jihadis, who have “hijacked” and “distorted” their faith, and want to support our efforts against them. But they are put off by our “insults” of Mohammed and our “intolerance” of the wonderful “religion of peace,” all of which serve to “recruit” new jihadists. Even Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham skirted this notion, advising against making any image of Mohammed, and thus in effect ratifying the legitimacy of the shari’a law against any representation of Mohammed, good or bad.

Consistent with this notion that flattery and respect can change Muslim behavior, many in the foreign policy establishment, including conservatives, have for decades counseled flattering “outreach” to Muslims as a tactic in winning the “hearts and minds” of the supposed large majority of Muslims angry at the jihadists’ “distortions” of their faith. Even before 9/11, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, called Islam “a faith that honors consultation, cherishes peace, and has as one of its fundamental principles the inherent equality of all who embrace it.” Even after 9/11 confirmed Islam’s traditional theologized violence and intolerance, George Bush claimed in his first address after 9/11 that Islam’s “teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.” In 2005, administration officials encouraged this tactic of false flattery as a way “to support the courageous Muslims who are speaking the truth about their proud religion and history, and seizing it back from those who would hijack it for evil ends.”

Of course Obama, who has serially groveled before Muslims and praised Islam, has continued this sorry practice. After his administration blamed the Benghazi murders on an obscure Internet video, he lectured that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.” The 2 gunmen in Garland Texas obviously agreed.  His quondam Secretary of State and now presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is on record extolling Islam’s “deepest yearning of all––to live in peace.” How is that going in Nigeria, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan? Worse of all, training materials used by our military and security services have excised any mention of jihad, which Western infidels have redefined as “a quest to find one’s faith in an external fight for justice,” as the New York Times put it in 2008. So Obama identifies the 13 slaughtered at Fort Hood to the traditional jihadist cry of “Allahu Akbar” as victims of “workplace violence.” Never mind the Koranic command to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush”––exactly what various jihadi outfits are doing today across the Middle East, and tried to do in Garland Texas.

Two decades of such flattery and admiration have failed to prevent nearly 26,000 violent jihadist attacks since 9/11, for they are based on Western bad ideas rather than on an accurate understanding of Islamic doctrine and the Muslim mentality. Behind our delusions is the peculiarly arrogant assumption that traditionalist Muslims––by which I mean those who take seriously the doctrines and precepts of their faith has practiced for 14 centuries––do not have their own motives and aims, but can only react to our bad behavior. Besotted by our own materialist superstitions and failure to take religion seriously, we reduce jihadist behavior to material and psychological causes: wounded self-esteem, resentment of “colonial” and “imperial” crimes, disrespect of Islam, or the lack of jobs, political freedom, or even sexual access to women.

Thus despite consistent polling data showing widespread Muslim support of illiberal shari’a law and its draconian penalties like death for blasphemy, we won’t accept that millions of Muslims actually believe what the Koran, Hadith, and 14 centuries of jurisprudence teach about the superiority of Islam and their right to use violence in order to bring the whole world under the sway of the superior social, economic, and political order that shari’a represents. In the guise of “respecting” Muslims, then, we patronize them as little more than children who can only “act out” violently in the face of injustice instead of “using their words.” Having reduced our own faith to holidays and comforting slogans, we simply can’t believe that Islam endorses violence and cruelty in the name of Allah, or that otherwise loving and kind people, as bin Laden was said to have been by all who knew him, can at the same time slaughter and brutalize innocents in pursuit of spiritual aims. No, either they are “crazy” or “evil,” or they are traumatized by our bad behavior.

This dubious pop-psychological assumption is usually accompanied by a catalogue of the historical crimes against Muslims perpetrated by the West, from the Crusades to the wars against the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. These depredations, so the story goes, also fuel anger and resentment, and help to incentivize otherwise peaceful Muslims into turning jihadist. But this narrative is belied by the facts of history. For what history tells us is that the record of Muslim conquest, occupation, colonizing, slaving, raiding, and killing of Christians far surpasses the alleged crimes of the West against Islam. We recently marked the centenary of the Ottoman genocide against the Christian Armenians, Assyrians, and Chaldeans, a crime being duplicated today by ISIS in northern Iraq. Recently our historically challenged president whined about the Crusades and the Inquisition, with nary a word about the centuries of Muslim invasion, occupation, colonization, and brutal suppression in Christian Spain, Sicily, the Balkans, and Greece.

Or what about the 1066 pogrom in Granada, the alleged paradise of “pan-confessional humanism,” as an ignorant Wall Street Journal editorial claimed a few years back. Those tolerant, humanist Muslims slaughtered 5000 Jews, equaling the toll of dead during the whole existence of the Inquisition. But can anyone name one Muslim religious leader in the Middle East who has publicly and consistently apologized in Obama fashion for these 14 centuries of slaughter? Who has justified our defensive wars in the region as an understandable reaction to that history? Who has chastised Muslims for destroying and desecrating churches, and blamed them for inviting violent reactions? Muslim Turkey won’t even own up to its copiously documented slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians. If anyone has a historical grievance that justifies payback, it is Christians and Jews.

Finally, if Western insults and crimes against Muslims are really the reason jihadists want to kill us, why do they let Russia off the hook? No Christian power has killed more Muslims or occupied more Muslim lands than has Russia, from the siege of Izmail in 1790, when 40,000 Muslim men, women, and children were slaughtered, to the invasion of Afghanistan, which killed a million, to the brutal wars against Muslim Chechnyans, which killed at least 100,000. Or how about the 10 million Muslim Uighurs oppressed by China and forbidden to fully practice their faith?  Is Russia or China the “Great Satan”? Are they the constant targets of jihadist attack and thundering denunciations by the mullahs of Iran? Are “moderate” Muslims “alienated” by their behavior and rushing to join the jihad against them?

The obvious answer is no, for the simple reason that Russia and China are contemptuous of such juvenile psychological blackmail, pursue their national interests without regard for criticism by the “Muslim community,” and respond with brutal force to violent attacks. Meanwhile the U.S. has rescued millions of Muslims in the Balkans, Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan from brutal dictators, ethnic cleansing, and psychotic autocrats, yet is deemed “Islamophobic” because we exercise our Constitutional rights in our own country. Worse yet, we grovel and apologize and demonize those like Pamela Geller who practice their right to free expression at a private function, and we vainly believe despite all evidence that if we just act nice to Muslims and join them in demonizing their critics, they’ll ignore their spiritual beliefs, the traditions of their faith, and the model of Mohammed and his credo to “fight all men until they say there is no god but Allah.”

To paraphrase Cicero and Orwell, there are some things so stupid that only rich, arrogant Westerners will believe them. If we let this president continue to predicate his dealings with Iran on this same delusional belief in the power of flattering engagement and “mutual respect,” we will soon find out the high cost of this stupidity.

Saudi Islamist Preacher: The Jews Poison Muslim Hearts and Minds with WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook

May 10, 2015

Saudi Islamist Preacher: The Jews Poison Muslim Hearts and Minds with WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook, MEMIR, May 10, 2015


Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future

May 10, 2015

Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future, Front Page Magazine, May 8, 2015

Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the Islamic states of the OIC have comprised the largest voting bloc at the United Nations. Wielding its influence, the OIC has succeeded in having Israel condemned more than 200 times in formal UN resolutions, more than all of the other member states combined. But the same Islamic voting bloc has ensured that the terrorist regimes in Iran, Gaza and the West Bank have not been censured even once.


In the aftermath of the jihadist attack in Garland, TX, leftists and Islamic supremacists are moving swiftly to blame Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer for their American Freedom Defense Initiative/Jihad Watch Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest for supposedly “provoking” the violent attack. Once again, advocates of free speech are being slandered while any attempts to examine the real motives of the ISIS-linked terrorists who tried to slaughter them are being labeled as unjustified and “Islamophobic.”

To combat this pernicious tactic and the toxic delusion that impoliteness about the prophet, and not planned Islamic terrorism, is somehow the cause of the attack in Garland in particular and the global jihad in general, Frontpage is running the Freedom Center’s pamphlet, Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future, written by David Horowitz and Robert Spencer.

The authors reveal how the word “Islamophobia” is used by the Muslim Brotherhood to inhibit opposition to jihad terror, and detail how the portrayal of Muslims as victims after every Jihadist attack is a carefully planned and skillfully executed program with the ultimate goal of curtailing the West’s freedom of speech and allowing the jihad to advance unimpeded.


Islamophobia: Thought Crime of the Totalitarian Future
By David Horowitz and Robert Spencer

In George Orwell’s futuristic nightmare, 1984, citizens are watched by a secret police for “thought crimes” committed against the totalitarian state. These thought crimes are simply attitudes and ideas the authorities regard as politically incorrect.

Orwell wrote 1984 during the height of the Cold War and its vision reflected an all-too-real fact of life. The Soviet police state had spread its tentacles over hundreds of millions of captive peoples. Tens of millions of them whose ideas failed to conform to the prescriptions of the totalitarian state were sent to labor camps and firing squads for committing thought crimes. Their offense was to be “anti-Soviet” – to speak out against socialism, or its rulers, or to fail to parrot the views and opinions approved by the regime.

During the Cold War, America led a coalition of democracies to oppose Communism because America’s founders had made the principle of liberty the cornerstone of their Republic. The very first article of the American Bill of Rights was not to have one’s speech restricted by the power of the state.

This First Amendment freedom guaranteed citizens the right to dissent from orthodoxy, to criticize the powerful, and to tell the truth as they saw it without fear of reprisal. This freedom is the absolute and indispensable basis of every other freedom that Americans enjoy. For without the right to dissent from the opinions of the state, every other freedom can be taken away. Without this right, every dissent from the policies and practices of the state would be a thought crime.

“Islamophobia” is the name that has been given to a modern-day thought crime. The purpose of the suffix in the term “Islamophobia” is to suggest that any fear associated with Islam is irrational – whether that fear stems from the fact that its prophet and current-day imams call on believers to kill infidels, or because the attacks of 9/11 were carried out to implement those calls. Worse than that, it is to suggest that such a response to those attacks reflects a bigotry that itself should be feared.

Those with a perspective on history, however, will take a different view. In the fall of 2005 global Muslim riots resulted in the deaths of over 100 people. The riots were triggered by the publication of cartoons in Denmark depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad.[1] In the wake of these religiously inspired outrages, a group of internationally reknowned writers issued a manifesto called, “Together Facing the New Totalitarianism.”[2] One of the writers, Salman Rushdie, had himself been the target of such attacks after the Islamic leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa calling on all Muslims to kill him. His offense? Insulting the prophet Muhammad in a novel. Rushdie was forced to go into hiding for several years and was only able to regain his freedom after the Ayatollah’s demise, although every year the Islamic Republic of Iran renews the death sentence.

The manifesto issued by Rushdie and his fellow writers said: “After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global totalitarian threat: Islamism…. We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of ‘Islamophobia,’ a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatization of those who believe in it. We defend the universality of the freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit can exist in every continent, towards each and every maltreatment and dogma.”[3]

Political Islam

Islam is often defended as a religion no different from Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and most other faiths. But this overlooks the fact that unlike other modern faiths, Islam is a political religion. Islam has had no reformation since its founding in the 7th Century, and Muslims recognize no separation between religion and state. In its canonical texts and teachings, Islam regards all other religions (and non-religions) as “infidel” creeds, and instructs believers to regard themselves at war with those who will not submit to the Muslim God. Unlike Christians or Jews, Muslim leaders seek to establish a global Islamic state or “caliphate” that would impose Islamic law on individuals everywhere and thus criminalize heretical thoughts.

Political Islam’s global ambition is openly stated. The president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has said: “Have no doubt… Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world.”[4] In 1990 the 56 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) met in Egypt and adopted the “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.” The Cairo Declaration states that, “all human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah.”[5]

These are religious statements, but they are made by political authorities. Moreover, they are in complete accord with traditional Islamic theology. In his 1955 book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, Majid Khadduri, an internationally renowned scholar of Islamic law, wrote: “The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world…. The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state.”[6]

Because the tenets of Islamic belief are not open to question, and because as a religion Islam prescribes moral behavior for every aspect of individual and social life, Islamic law – sharia – is by its very nature totalitarian. A religion that recognizes no principle of separation from governmental authority, whose prescriptions dictate what is proper for every aspect of private life is the very definition of totalitarian rule. Where Islam becomes the religion of the state, violations of Islamic doctrine and heretical thoughts are inevitably seen as crimes against the state.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (now called The Organization of Islamic Cooperation) is composed of the fifty-six Islamic nations plus the Palestinian Authority.[7] At present, only Saudi Arabia and Iran, along with Islamic northern Sudan and most of Somalia, are states where Islamic law is fully implemented. Other Islamic states, such as Pakistan, Egypt and Indonesia are currently governed by a mixture of Western and Islamic law. Even in such “moderate” majority-Muslim states, however, Christians are violently persecuted as infidels and non-Muslims in general are denied basic rights. Even in these states, apostasy is not tolerated. Converts from Islam to other religions are routinely threatened, harassed, jailed and even executed under existing state law. In short, even in “moderate” Muslim states the penalty for deviation from the accepted religious orthodoxy is severe, and in each of these states there are radical Islamic movements pushing for more stringent conformity to Islamic law.

Not a single one of its members, with the arguable exception of Lebanon, which is unique in having a significant Christian population, can be considered a democracy in the western sense. Even secular Turkey denies equality of rights to Christians in numerous ways. Not a single one of the 56 Islamic states or the Palestinian Authority is tolerant towards gays, women or other minorities or treats them as equals.

Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the Islamic states of the OIC have comprised the largest voting bloc at the United Nations. Wielding its influence, the OIC has succeeded in having Israel condemned more than 200 times in formal UN resolutions, more than all of the other member states combined. But the same Islamic voting bloc has ensured that the terrorist regimes in Iran, Gaza and the West Bank have not been censured even once.

Through the OIC, the Islamic states have also been working for several years to persuade the members of the UN to criminalize “Islamophobia.”

Islamophobia and the Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood is a global organization and the leading force behind political totalitarian Islam. It is also the fountainhead of terrorist Islam, and in particular the Islamic terror groups al-Qaeda and Hamas.

The Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hasan al-Banna. Al-Banna was an open admirer and supporter of Adolf Hitler, and had Mein Kampftranslated into Arabic in the 1930s. His disciple, Haj Amin al-Husseni, the patriarch of Palestinian nationalism, spent the Second World War in Berlin recruiting Arabs for Hitler’s legions.

Al-Banna’s ambition was to create a global Islamic empire instituting sharia as a global law: “It is a duty incumbent on every Muslim to struggle towards the aim of making every people Muslim and the whole world Islamic, so that the banner of Islam can flutter over the earth and the call of the Muezzin can resound in all the corners of the world: God is greatest [Allahu akbar]!”[8] The motto of the Muslim Brotherhood inspires its members to achieve this plan: “Allah is our goal. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration.”

Al-Banna’s movement grew quickly in Egypt, but after a member of the Brotherhood assassinated the Egyptian prime minister on December 28, 1948, the organization was outlawed. However, since the days of President Gamel Abdel Nasser (1956-1970), the Brotherhood has been so popular among Egyptians that the Egyptian government has looked the other way as the group terrorized Coptic Christians and others, and enforced Islamic strictures upon the population as a whole.

It was only when the Brotherhood showed signs of becoming strong enough to seize state power that the Egyptian government cracked down. In 1966, the Brotherhood’s leading theorist, Sayyid Qutb (also an admirer of Hitler), was arrested and executed for calling for the overthrow of the existing regime and its replacement with one that fully implemented Islamic law. But the popularity of the Brotherhood persisted. Nasser’s successor Anwar Sadat, signed a peace agreement with Israel, which led to his assassination by Islamic hardliners. Shortly before his assassination, Sadat released all the members of the Brotherhood who had been languishing in Egyptian prisons, and even promised the Brotherhood that Islamic law would be fully implemented in Egypt.

After 9/11, the Brotherhood launched a campaign to sanitize its image and present itself as a moderate organization. Its intention was to enter the political process, a goal that was finally achieved with the fall of Sadat’s successor, Mubarak, in order to further its goal of converting Egypt into an Islamic state. Immediately after Mubarak’s fall, the Brotherhood became the leading political force in Egypt, its influence manifest in the reopening of Egypt’s relations with Iran for the first time in 34 years. This entente coincided with Cairo’s ending of the arms blockade of Gaza that had been designed to keep weapons from flowing to the Islamic terrorist group Hamas – itself a Brotherhood creation.

Hamas identifies itself as a creature of the Brotherhood in its founding charter: “The Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas] is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a world organization, the largest Islamic Movement in the modern era.”[9] Al-Qaeda founders Abdullah Azzam and Osama bin Laden, and top leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, were all members of or trained by the Muslim Brotherhood.[10]

The Brotherhood’s reach also extended into Shi’ite Iran. Navab Safavi, founder of the Iranian Islamic group Fedayan-e Islam, which was active in Iran in the 1950s, was strongly influenced by the Brotherhood; Savafi himself went on to become a close associate of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini, of course, was notorious for calling America after the name of the large pillar that Muslims stone during the pilgrimage to Mecca: the “Great Satan” – that is, the leader of the anti-totalitarian, anti-Sharia, infidel world.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s designs on the Great Satan are spelled out in a captured internal document the FBI seized in the Northern Virginia headquarters of the Holy Land Foundation in 2005. The Holy Land Foundation was the largest Islamic “charity” in America but was at the same time a front for raising funds for the terrorist organization (and Muslim Brotherhood creation) Hamas. The seized document was presented as evidence in the trial of the HLF in 2007. The Foundation was accused of illegally supporting a terrorist organization, Hamas. The trial resulted in convictions of the HLF leaders.

The captured document was titled, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”[11] In it, Muslim Brotherhood members were told: “The general strategic goal of the group in America, which was approved by the Shura Council and the Organizational Conference for the year [1987] is Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood, which adopts Muslim causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at directing and unifying Muslims’ efforts, presents Islam as a civilizational alternative, and supports the global Islamic state wherever it is.”[12] And further: “[Muslims] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

To realize the goal of destroying Western civilization and establishing a global Islamic state, the Brotherhood memorandum called for the creation of front organizations that would insinuate themselves into the institutional framework of host societies and of American society in particular. Among the groups the Memorandum identified as being part of this network of Brotherhood fronts in America were the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Students Association, the Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America, and the Islamic Association for Palestine, the parent group of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).[13]

Another front group identified in the memorandum – the International Institute for Islamic Thought – invented the term “Islamophobia.”[14]

A Global Movement Against Islamophobia

Abdur-Rahman Muhammad is a former member of the International Institute for Islamic Thought. He was present when the word “Islamophobia” was created, but now characterizes the concept of Islamophobia this way: “This loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”[15] In short, in its very origins, “Islamophobia” was a term designed as a weapon to advance a totalitarian cause by stigmatizing critics and silencing them.

Although it was invented in the early 1990s, “Islamophobia” did not become the focus of an active Brotherhood campaign until after 9/11. Since then it has become “a matter of extreme priority” for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation according to its Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu.[16] By 2010, the campaign had already achieved notable success. In November of that year, the U.N. General Assembly voted to condemn what it called the “vilification of religion.”[17] Every majority-Muslim state, without exception, supported the resolution.

A Reuters report claimed that the resolution’s language had been softened before it was finally submitted. The term “defamation” had been changed to “vilification” in order to win more support from Western nations. But the two words are essentially synonyms, and both are dangerously subjective. What actually constitutes “defamation” or “vilification” would presumably be left up to some UN body to determine, in other words essentially to the Islamic states.

The resolution is a step towards making criticisms of “matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred” into criminal acts.[18] So defined, and made into law, it would be an anti-blasphemy statute. Such statutes are presently on the books in several Islamic states. On the other hand, anti-blasphemy laws are the very reason why the American founders created the First Amendment.

They themselves were refugees from religious persecution and wanted to make sure the new republic they had created could not sanctify a particular creed and use it to persecute dissenters. That is what American democracy is essentially about.

To sugarcoat its bitter pill, the UN resolution against “vilification” condemned not only “Islamophobia,” but “Judeophobia and Christianophobia.” But this was merely a sop to Western sensibilities and bothersome notions of free speech, not something that the Muslim framers of the resolution took seriously. Massacres of Christians in Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan and Indonesia, and terror attacks against Passover seders in Israel, along with other acts of Muslim hatred towards other religions never led to calls for UN censure from the OIC. When Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ became a cause celebre, or a thousand anti-Semitic caricatures appeared in Arab government media (including the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was run as an eleven-part mini-series on Egyptian TV), there were no expressions of OIC or UN outrage or formal condemnations.

The clear aim of the UN’s anti-blasphemy resolution was to proscribeIslamophobia in non-Muslim countries, not to curb hatred against Jews, Christians and other religions by Muslims. On the contrary, blasphemy laws defined to include the expression of basic Christian and Jewish beliefs are already on the books in many areas of the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia, to take an extreme case, allows no non-Muslim religious expression at all, since Muhammad commanded that Jews and Christians be expelled from the Arabian peninsula, and that there be only one religion there. Thus it is illegal to build a Christian church in Saudi Arabia, or to bring a Bible across its borders, and no Jew or Christian is permitted to set foot in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina lest they be defiled. In Pakistan, a blasphemy law has been used to victimize numerous innocent Christians, sometimes simply for affirming the Christian faith. The punishment is often death.

Islamophobia Defined

Just as the Muslim Brotherhood had affinities with Nazi totalitarians, so they absorbed and embraced Marxist indictments of the capitalist West. Their instructors were first their Communist allies and then post-Communist, “social justice” progressives.[19] Islamic jihadist pronouncements regularly incorporate the analyses of American leftists. Among the books recommended in Osama bin Laden’s fatwas are Mearsheimer and Walt’s conspiratorial text on how the Jewish lobby controls Washington’s policy in the Middle East and Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance.[20]

Indeed, the anti-Islamophobia movement has been built on the foundations created by progressives and, as a result, is already well advanced in the West. In 1996 the Runnymede Trust, a leftist group in England, established a “Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia.” Its elaborate definition of Islamophobia has since become a model for Muslim Brotherhood fronts like CAIR and the Muslim Students Association in their drive to impose anti-Islamophobia strictures on everyone and suppress critics of the Islamic jihad. Under the Runnymede definition, Islamophobia includes any one of these eight components:

  1. Islam seen as a single monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to new realities.
  2. Islam seen as separate and other – (a) not having any aims or values in common with other cultures (b) not affected by them (c) not influencing them.
  3. Islam seen as inferior to the West – barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist.
  4. Islam seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, engaged in ‘a clash of civilizations’.
  5. Islam seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
  6. Criticisms made by Islam of ‘the West’ rejected out of hand.
  7. Hostility towards Islam used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
  8. Anti-Muslim hostility accepted as natural and ‘normal’.”[21]

Note, at the outset, how contradictory these proscriptions are. The very first Runnymede injunction seeks to ban all references to Islam as a “single monolithic bloc.” But then, with one exception, every other Runnymede proscription presents Islam as a single monolithic bloc: “Islam seen as separate;… Islam seen as inferior;… sexist; Islam seen as violent,” “Criticisms made by Islam of ‘the West’ rejected out of hand”…, These statements presume that Islam is a unitary entity, and can, for example, make judgments about the West with a single voice that are rejected out of hand. These definitions of Islamophobia are made as though there were no separatist Muslims to be concerned about, no violent Muslims to fear, no doctrines associated with “Islam” that are backward and sexist, and no Muslim criticisms of the West that should be rejected out of hand.

There is a reason why the Runnymede statement and its imitators take a monolithic view of Islam. It serves their primary goal, which is to conflate criticisms of some Islamic doctrines and opposition to Islamic terrorists with attacks on Muslims as such. As the signers of the Rushdie manifesto put it: “‘Islamophobia’ [is a] wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatization of those who believe in it.” Thus critics of Islam’s relegation of women to second-class citizenship are labeled anti-Muslim even though they are defending Muslims, and opponents of Islamic terror are called Islamophobes.

Each one of the Runnymede criteria is so vague as to be easily applied to any criticism of Islam. Is Islam sexist – i.e., do women have diminished rights in Muslim societies and cultures? It is undeniable that they do. But in the Runnymede view to say so is Islamophobic. Is Islam engaged in a clash of civilizations? The leaders of Islamic jihadist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hezbollah, and the rulers of Muslim states like the Sudan and Iran proclaim that they are in a civilizational war with West. But to recognize this fact is Islamophobia. Is Islam a political ideology? It is the ideology of political organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban and states like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Islamic apologists all over the world criticize the idea of the separation of religion and state, and compare Islam favorably to Christianity precisely because Islam has a political doctrine and Christianity does not. Yet to note this fact is anti-Muslim.

There is no mystery as to how the Runnymede principles will be interpreted. They have already been used to condemn every critic of the Islamic oppression of women, Islamic support for suicide bombings and other acts of terror, and of Islamic intolerance. Such critics are Islamophobes.

Outlawing Cartoons and Films

The OIC campaign against Islamophobia began in earnest at its annual meeting in March 2008 in Senegal. At this meeting, the OIC declared its intention to craft a “legal instrument” to fight against the threat to Islam “from political cartoonists and bigots.”[22] The reference was to the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that appeared in 2005, touching off international protests by Muslims worldwide, which included riots, the burning of embassies, and even murders of non-Muslims, including a Catholic nun. “Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination,” fumed Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, who gave attendees “a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world. The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defense must be mounted.”[23] The attack by Muslims on non-Muslims and the 100 plus fatalities caused by the protests went un-noted and un-deplored.

Ihsanoglu even compared the appearance of the Danish cartoons to the 9/11 atrocity, warning that “the Islamic world took the satirical drawings as a different version of the September 11 attacks against them.” He then urged the European Union to adopt new laws against Islamophobia.”[24]

At the Senegal conference, Ihsanoglu declared: “Islamophobia cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement.” Political engagement meant a campaign to restrict freedom of speech. Abdoulaye Wade, president of Senegal and OIC chairman, explained: “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits.”[25] In a July 2008 briefing on Capitol Hill, Pakistani Embassy representative Asma Fatima defended the anti-cartoon outrages as necessary and called for restrictions on speech that insulted Islam: “The ideal of freedom of speech is precious to you, but it’s not value-neutral. You don’t have to hurt people’s sentiments and bring them to the point where they have to react in strange ways.”[26]

The OIC’s new anti-Islamophobia campaign also focused on Fitna, a short film by Dutch politician Geert Wilders. The offense committed by the film consisted of quotes of passages from the Qur’an exhorting Muslims to violence and then depictions of the contemporary violence directly inspired by those passages. The OIC condemned Fitna in “the strongest terms,” claiming that Wilders’ film was “a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims,” and was intended only to “provoke unrest and intolerance.”[27]There was no suggestion that the citations from the Qur’an were inaccurate or that the incidents depicted hadn’t taken place. Physical threats against Wilders by Muslims resulted in the Dutch government providing him with a 24-hour security detail. The same threats forced Wilders to live in hiding, separated from his family.

It was extraordinary enough that a member of the Dutch Parliament and leader of the nation’s third largest party would have to live in hiding, but the indictment was even more outrageous than that. It charged that Wilders had “intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion”; had “incited to hatred of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion”; and had “incited to discrimination…against people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion.” It also claimed that he had incited people to hate Muslims because of their race.[28] All this was based on statements Wilders had made about Islam that were entirely true and accurate; the Netherlands came quite close to criminalizing the speaking of unpleasant truths.

But instead of defending Wilders’ right to his opinions, many Western officials rushed to support the OIC’s condemnation. Ihsanoglu noted that the anti-free speech campaign had made “convincing progress at all these levels mainly the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the UN General Assembly. The United Nations General Assembly adopted similar resolutions against the defamation of Islam.” He added: “In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film ‘Fitna’, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.”[29]

Doudou Diène, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of “racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance,” went further, suggesting that even quoting the Qur’an accurately but in a critical manner was an act of bigotry:

One may note that a number of Islamophobic statements have been falsely claimed to be scientific or scholarly, in order to give intellectual clout to arguments that link Islam to violence and terrorism. Furthermore, the manipulation and selective quoting of sacred texts, in particular the Qur’an, as a means to deceptively argue that these texts show the violent nature of Islam has become current practice.[30]

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the international campaign against free speech was the readiness of western politicians of a leftist bent, including government leaders, to support the Muslim assault and to impose restrictions on their own people. This was especially egregious in the Netherlands, the scene of shocking acts of Islam-related violence.

The gay politician Pim Fortuyn was murdered in 2002 by a leftist Dutchman, Volkert van der Graaf, who explained that he had done it on behalf of the country’s Muslims, to stop their “scapegoating” by Fortuyn. In 2004 an Islamic jihadist, Mohammed Bouyeri, murdered filmmaker Theo van Gogh – also gay – in broad daylight on a street in Amsterdam, because van Gogh had insulted Islam with his film, Submission, criticizing the Islamic treatment of women.

The trial of Geert Wilders ended in an acquittal in June 2011, on which occasion he said: “It is my strong conviction that Islam is a threat to Western values, to freedom of speech, to the equality of men and women, of heterosexuals and homosexuals, of believers and unbelievers.” These claims are founded in the behavior of the OIC and the failure of any Muslim authority to defend Wilders, in the clear and elaborate strictures about women and homosexuals in Islamic teachings and Islamic law, and in the persecution of non-believers, Christians in particular, in Muslim countries such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia, all of which go un-noted and un-lamented in the pronouncements of the 56 Muslim states (and the Palestinian Authority) included in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

Nonetheless, Wilders’ post-trial utterance is precisely the sort of statement that led to his indictment. Even as the Dutch court acquitted him, moreover, it affirmed the false and dangerous premises that underpinned the prosecution, including the idea that one could and should face legal action for saying things that others deemed offensive. Amsterdam judge Marcel van Oosten explained: “The bench finds that your statements are acceptable within the context of the public debate. The bench finds that although gross and denigrating, it did not give rise to hatred.”[31]

In other words, the presiding judge would not have hesitated to fine or jail Wilders if he had determined that his words gave rise to “hatred.” Thus the false and dangerous premise of Wilders’ indictment is still in place in Dutch law. Upon his acquittal, Wilders said: “Today is a victory for freedom of speech. The Dutch are still allowed to speak critically about Islam, and resistance against Islamization is not a crime.”[32] At least for now.

Islamophobia Witch Hunts

In many European countries governments already preemptively silence critics of Islam in the name of fighting racial hatred. In June 2002, well before the OIC had begun its Islamophobia campaign in earnest, Muslims in Switzerland targeted the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci for her post-9/11 book, The Rage and the Pride. In it, she had argued that Europe was being colonized by Muslims who refused to assimilate into their host societies, and remained hostile to their cultures and values.

Citing Swiss laws against racism, the Islamic Center of Geneva demanded that Fallaci’s book be banned. Hani Ramadan, grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, declared that “Fallaci is insulting the Muslim community as a whole with her shameful words.” The Islamic Center called on Swiss authorities not only to ban her book, but to prosecute those who were distributing it. Swiss officials moved to have Fallaci extradited to face trial, but failed in their attempt.[33] Then, in May 2005, the Italian government itself indicted Fallaci for writing a book that “defames Islam.”[34]

The campaign to silence Fallaci spread to France, where a group calling itself the Movement Against Racism And For Friendship Between Peoples (MRAP) also filed racism charges, arguing that “Freedom of expression is and will remain a fundamental right . . . but when this great writer resorts to outrageous stigmatization of Islam, the limits of what is tolerable are breached.”[35] In the end, Fallaci escaped prosecution only because she fled Europe and took refuge in America, where the Bill of Rights still prevailed. Shortly before she died of cancer in 2006, she predicted that when the case came to trial, she would be found guilty.[36]

The guardians of “tolerable” speech had better luck against Sixties screen siren Brigitte Bardot, who was convicted five times in her native France for “inciting racial hatred” – in every case for remarks considered denigrating to Muslims. In June 2008, a court fined the 73-year-old Bardot 15,000 euros (around $23,000) as punishment for writing that the Islamic community in France was “destroying our country and imposing its acts.”[37] The court apparently didn’t consider the possibility that imposing Islamic law was precisely what many Muslims in France had in mind. Although they had not moved, like their coreligionists in Britain, to establish separate Sharia courts, they enforced many Sharia provisions in the banlieus, the majority-Muslim areas encircling most major French cities.

These prosecutions were ongoing. Wilders noted shortly after his acquittal that “Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard, Austrian human rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and others…have recently been convicted for criticizing Islam.”[38] In October 2009, journalist Jonathan Turley noted that Ireland had passed a blasphemy law, and that “in Holland, Dutch prosecutors arrested cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot for insulting Christians and Muslims with cartoons, including one that caricatured a Christian fundamentalist and a Muslim fundamentalist as zombies who want to marry and attend gay rallies.” Christian fundamentalists, of course, were not the ones complaining. Turley added that, “the ‘blasphemy’ cases include the prosecution of writers for calling Mohammed a ‘pedophile’ because of his marriage to 6-year-old Aisha (which was consummated when she was 9). A far-right legislator in Austria, a publisher in India and a city councilman in Finland have been prosecuted for repeating this view of the historical record.”[39]

Such prosecutions have already come to North America as well. On February 14, 2006, a Canadian magazine, the Western Standard, became one of the few publications in the Western world to reprint the Danish Muhammad cartoons. The Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and the Edmonton Muslim Council complained that the Standard’s publisher, Ezra Levant, was “Islamophobic,” sparking an investigation of Levant by the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission. In America, Yale University press published a scholarly book about the Muhammad cartoons, but refused to print the cartoons themselves in the text.

During his interrogation by a commission investigator, Ezra Levant delivered a ringing defense of freedom of speech. Many voices were raised in protest against the prosecution, including even some on the left, such as that of Megan McArdle, a senior editor of The Atlantic.[40] Facing a groundswell of support for Levant, the Islamic Supreme Council withdrew its complaint.[41]But an even higher profile case was brought against Maclean’s magazine in Canada for running an excerpt from America Alone, a book by the popular columnist Mark Steyn.

Charging that Steyn’s “flagrantly   Islamophobic” writing subjected Canadian Muslims to “hatred and contempt,” the Canadian Islamic Congress (C.I.C.) filed complaints against Maclean’s with three separate Human Rights Commissions.[42] One of the Canadian Islamic Congress’s complaints was about Steyn’s comment that in Europe, “the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes.”[43] New Republic writer Jim Henley labeled Steyn a “racist” because of this phrase.[44] One small problem with these attacks was the mosquito remark was a quote from Mullah Krekar, a Muslim jihadist who continues to reside in Norway, despite longstanding efforts to deport him.

Moreover, Krekar’s prediction of Islam’s demographic conquest of Europe is hardly original. As far back as 1974, Algerian leader Houari Boumédienne declared at the United Nations that “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”[45]

In fact, this is a commonly expressed aspiration of Islamic supremacists. It wasn’t Steyn who said that “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor,” or that “The conquest this time will not be by the sword but by preaching and ideology.” These are sentiments expressed by Al-Jazeera’s Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, who is widely hailed as a “moderate” reformer in the West and is a close friend of former London Mayor Ken Livingstone.[46]Qaradawi is also on record saying that the Holocaust was God’s punishment of the Jews and that “Allah willing, the next time it will be by the believers.”[47]Nor was it Steyn who said that Muslims “will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.” This was said by a Saudi Sheikh, Muhammad bin Abd Al-Rahman Al-Arifi, imam of the mosque of the King Fahd Defense Academy.[48]

In the end, Steyn’s offense was identical to Wilders’ – to quote the statements of Muslims themselves revealing agendas that many Westerners would find worrisome.

The actions of the Canadian Islamic Congress show the great lengths to which Western-based Muslim advocacy groups will go to carry water for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in its campaign to silence public discussion of jihadists’ self-stated goals in their holy war against the West. The Canadian Islamic Congress doesn’t file complaints against the jihadists who actually advocate an Islamic conquest of Europe; it just goes after western critics of these agendas. In other words, it is “Islamophobia” to reveal the unpleasant reality of the Islam-inspired war against the West.

Islamophobia and National Security

Stigmatizing critics of the Islamic jihad as “Islamophobes” not only threatens free speech; it cuts large holes in our security defenses against a terrorist attack. In April 2009, Barack Obama appointed Arif Alikhan, the deputy mayor of Los Angeles, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security. While serving as Los Angeles’ deputy mayor, Alikhan (who once called the jihad terror group Hezbollah a “liberation movement”) blocked a Los Angeles Police Department project to assemble data about the ethnic makeup of mosques in the Los Angeles area. This was not an attempt to conduct surveillance of the mosques or monitor them in any way. LAPD Deputy Chief Michael P. Downing explained that it was actually an outreach program: “We want to know where the Pakistanis, Iranians and Chechens are so we can reach out to those communities.”[49]But Alikhan and other Muslim leaders claimed that the project manifested racism and “Islamophobia,” and the LAPD ultimately discarded all plans to study the mosques and gain invaluable contacts in the Muslim community that might prevent terrorist attacks. Alikhan’s reward for this disservice was to be appointed by President Obama to a key role at Homeland Security, the department charged with managing the defenses of the entire country. And in December 2010, the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution condemning “Islamophobia.”[50]

The effect of the multifaceted societal onslaught against critical observations about Islamic jihadists has been a weakening of necessary defenses. On November 5, 2009, Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan gave a neighbor a copy of the Qur’an and told her, “I’m going to do good work for God.”[51] Later that day, he entered a center at Fort Hood in Texas where soldiers receive medical examinations before deploying overseas. Shouting “Allahu akbar,” Hasan pulled out a handgun and began firing.[52] Before he was finished he had murdered thirteen unarmed American soldiers and wounded 30. Yet long before this massacre, Hasan had displayed unmistakable signs of sympathies for jihadist terror. Major Hasan routinely harassed his colleagues with harangues about Islam, and proclaimed that he was “Muslim first and American second.”[53] His business card read “SOA,” a well-known acronym among jihadists for “Soldier of Allah.”[54]

Hasan gave a PowerPoint presentation to his colleagues in which he proposed to show “what the Qur’an inculcates in the minds of Muslims and the potential implications this may have for the U.S. military.” In it, he argued that Muslims must not fight against other Muslims (as is mandated by Qur’an 4:92), and that the Qur’an also mandates both defensive and offensive jihad against unbelievers, in order to impose upon those unbelievers the hegemony of Islamic law. He quoted the Qur’anic verse calling for war against the “People of the Book” (that is, mainly Jews and Christians) until they “pay the tax in acknowledgment of [Islamic] superiority and they are in a state of subjection” (9:29).

According to reports of his talk, Hasan seems then to have told the assembled (and no doubt stunned) physicians that Muslims had a religious obligation to make war against and subjugate non-Muslims as inferiors under their rule. An official who spoke to some of those who attended the lecture said that “Hasan apparently gave a long lecture on the Qur’an and talked about how if you don’t believe, you are condemned to hell. Your head is cut off. You’re set on fire. Burning oil is burned down your throat.”[55]According to the Associated Press, “he gave a class presentation questioning whether the U.S.-led war on terror was actually a war on Islam. And students said he suggested that Shariah, or Islamic law, trumped the Constitution and he attempted to justify suicide bombings.”[56] above all, he warned that Muslim soldiers should not be sent to fight for the U.S. in Muslim countries, invoking the earlier jihad murders by another Muslim serviceman, Sgt. Hasan Akbar, of his commanding officers in Kuwait as evidence of what could happen if they were forced to do so.

It was fear of being accused of “Islamophobia” that prevented Major Hasan’s Army superiors from acting upon the warning signs of his commitment to jihad. According to the Associated Press, “a Defense Department review of the shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, has found the doctors overseeing Maj. Nidal Hasan’s medical training repeatedly voiced concerns over his strident views on Islam and his inappropriate behavior, yet they continued to give him positive performance evaluations that kept him moving through the ranks.”[57] In other words, he rose through the Army ranks even as he justified suicide bombing and spouted hatred for America while wearing its uniform. He was even promoted from Captain to Major after the notorious lecture at the school of medicine.

While his colleagues and superiors noted his statements, and were worried about them, “no one in Hasan’s chain of command, appears to have challenged his eligibility to hold a secret security clearance even though they could have because the statements raised doubt about his loyalty to the United States.”[58]

What was the reason for the silence in the face of all these warnings? If Nidal Hasan had been removed from his position or merely reprimanded in the months or years before he massacred thirteen people in cold blood at Fort Hood, it isn’t hard to imagine what might have happened. Groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) would have been quick to charge the Army with Islamo-phobia. The mainstream media would have embarked on a full-bore witch-hunt about the alleged persecution of Muslims in the military, interviewing the teary-eyed mothers of Muslim soldiers killed in the line of duty while fighting for the U.S. in Iraq or Afghanistan. Army Generals would have had to answer questions about alleged discrimination against Muslims in the military on the Sunday morning talk shows. And ultimately the President of the United States would order a special effort to make Muslims in the military feel welcome.

Worse still, those who might have complained about Hasan would have faced public abuse, smearing by CAIR and MPAC as Islamphobes, and possibly even disciplinary action from their superiors. Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart and Bill Maher would have subjected them to nationally broadcast ridicule. All Army personnel would have been ordered into sensitivity training, perhaps run by CAIR itself.

It isn’t hard at all to imagine such a scenario, because it has played out in real life more than once. For years now CAIR, MPAC and other Islamic advocacy groups have done all they could to demonize everyone who speaks honestly about the threat of jihad and Islamic supremacism. For CAIR and MPAC the Fort Hood massacre was in a very real sense a mission accomplished: “Islamophobia” was duly avoided. Nidal Hasan was not removed from his post, and no steps were taken to protect anyone from him. The U.S. Government’s official report on the Fort Hood massacre doesn’t mention Islam or jihad or terrorism even once. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared: “This was an individual who does not represent the Muslim faith.”[59] The U.S. Army Chief of Staff, George Casey, went further: “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”[60]

So recognizing signs of Muslim hostility (which, of course, is Islamophobia) is worse than mass murder. That is the judgment of the U.S. Army Chief of Staff.

CAIR’s Islamophobia Campaign

The Muslim Brotherhood front CAIR is the leader of the anti-Islamophobia campaign in the United States. CAIR presents itself as a mainstream civil rights organization for Muslims, “similar to a Muslim NAACP,” in the words of CAIR spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper.[61] The group says its mission is “to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.”[62]

Like so many pronouncements from Brotherhood fronts, this is just a smokescreen for CAIR’s real agendas. On June 4, 2007, the Justice Department named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. The Foundation was accused and then convicted of funding the terrorist organization Hamas, a Brotherhood offshoot. Federal prosecutors identified CAIR as an organization created out of “the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations.” To set itself up in business, CAIR had received half a million dollars from the Holy Land Foundation making it the participant in a criminal conspiracy on behalf of Hamas.[63] When confronted with this fact by terrorism analyst Steven Emerson in 2003, CAIR cofounder and Executive Director Nihad Awad declared: “This is an outright lie. Our organization did not receive any seed money from the Holy Land Foundation. CAIR raises its own funds and we challenge Mr. Emerson to provide even a shred of evidence to support his ridiculous claim.” Emerson then produced the canceled check.[64]

CAIR was created in 1994 as a spinoff of a Hamas front group, the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). Founded in 1981 by Hamas operative Mousa Abu Marzook, the IAP was shut down in 2005 by the U.S. government for funding terrorism.[65] In 1994 at Barry University in Florida, Nihad Awad conceded, “I’m in support of [the] Hamas movement more than the PLO.”[66]In 1998, CAIR cofounder and longtime Board chairman Omar Ahmad told a Muslim audience: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”[67] Since 9/11, CAIR executives have learned to be more careful with their public utterances, and today Ahmad denies uttering the quote. But the journalist who reported it stands by the accuracy of her story.[68]

In 2007 six Muslim clerics sued US Airways after they were removed from a flight for behavior that could only be described as mimicking the behavior of airline terrorists. The lawyer for the “Flying Imams,” as they became known, was Omar T. Mohammedi, who has served as president of CAIR’s New York chapter.[69] The imams also attempted to sue the anonymous passengers who reported them, but House Republicans pushed through a measure protecting whistleblowers in such circumstances.[70] If the imams’ suit had been successful it would have essentially placed Muslims beyond the pale of security-related scrutiny; anyone who reported suspicious behavior by a Muslim in an airport or airplane would have risked being sued as an “Islamophobe.”

Six years before this, CAIR was already on the offensive in a campaign that made clear its real aim: to suppress any association between Islam and the terrorists who acted in its name. In 2001, Tom Clancy’s novel about Islamic terrorists, The Sum of All Fears, was being made into a movie. CAIR launched a successful campaign to pressure the filmmakers into changing the terrorists of the script into some other kind of villain. Despite the fact that the film was targeted for a post-9/11 audience, the filmmakers bowed to CAIR’s pressure and re-cast the villains as neo-Nazis. Film director Phil Alden Robinson wrote abjectly to CAIR, “I hope you will be reassured that I have no intention of promoting negative images of Muslims or Arabs, and I wish you the best in your continuing efforts to combat discrimination.”[71]

In June 2011, CAIR published a report on Islamophobia in America. It was called Same Hate, New Target: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States. The title reflected a main theme of the anti-Islamophobia campaign, which is to portray the effort to silence critics of Islamic jihad as following in the footsteps of the civil rights struggles of the past. As OIC Secretary General Ihsanoglu explained “Islamophobia represents a contemporary manifestation of racism and the phenomenon must be addressed in that context.”[72]

The CAIR report was published with an introduction by Niwad Awad, who thanked Dr. Hatem Bazian for his input. Bazian, an instructor at UC Berkeley, is a ubiquitous speaker for terrorist support groups like the Palestine Solidarity Movement. He gained notoriety in 2004 when he called for “an Intifada in this country” in a speech at Berkeley.[73]

The CAIR report is careful to begin with a gesture of fairness, suggesting that not every critic of Islam is an Islamophobe (“it is not appropriate to label all, or even the majority of those, who question Islam and Muslims as Islamophobes”), but then fails to provide a single example of what those legitimate questions might be or to identify a single individual whose criticisms of Islam might be so regarded. It then defines Islamophobia as “close-minded prejudice against or hatred of Islam and Muslims,” and lists the eight sweeping principles of the Runnymede document as tests of closed-mindedness.[74]

Not surprisingly, CAIR has repeatedly and consistently used the vagueness of those principles to characterize as “prejudice” and “hatred” any resistance to the global jihad, including virtually all of the anti-terror legal measures and policy procedures adopted by the United States government beginning with the Patriot Act. In its report CAIR displays its own open-mindedness by demonizing as “Islamophobic” every public figure who has worked effectively against Islamic terrorism and supremacism.

In a section titled “The Worst” – meaning the worst Islamophobes – CAIR’s report smears Daniel Pipes (“the grandfather of Islamophobia in America”), Robert Spencer (“intellectualized Islamophobia”), Steven Emerson (“anti-Muslim propaganda mouth-piece”), former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney (“loony-tunes bigotry”), Brigitte Gabriel (“makes no attempt to hide her efforts to de-humanize Muslims), Newt Gingrich (“a consumer of the Islamophobic narrative”), and Pamela Geller (“an anti-Islam activist”).[75]

Robert Spencer is a co-author of this booklet. The CAIR report claims that “[Robert] Spencer offers an intellectualized Islamophobia through ‘selectively ignoring’ Islamic texts and principles that do not fit his view of Islam as the enemy” i.e., as purveyor of violent jihadist doctrines.[76] As in so many instances of CAIR’s claims, this is simply a fabrication. In his books Onward Muslim Soldiers and The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, Spencer discusses the peaceful and tolerant verses of the Qur’an in detail. But he also explains how mainstream Muslim exegetes regard the peaceful verses, which are confined to the earlier sections of the Qur’an as being superseded by the later violent ones. Instead of responding to these observations and possibly challenging them, CAIR prefers to demonize the messenger and warn others not to consider his analysis and its implications.

CAIR’s principal charge against Spencer is that he “operates the blog ‘Jihad Watch,’ which is notorious for its depiction of Islam as an inherently violent faith that is a threat to world peace.”[77] The irony, of course, is that so many Muslims behave on a daily basis as if Islam were an inherently violent faith. If they were to stop acting on this belief, ‘Jihad Watch’ would have nothing to report and would cease to exist. But it is characteristic of CAIR’s Islamophobia campaign to pretend that “Islamophobes” – not the Islamic jihadists – are the problem.

CAIR also condemns Spencer for participating in a 2006 conference honoring the murdered Pim Fortuyn. CAIR doesn’t mention, of course, why Fortuyn was murdered, for to do so would have revealed that the real targets of violence in the Netherlands are non-Muslim critics of Islam, not Muslims.

A comment on CAIR’s report by its legislative director, Corey Saylor. reveals its bottom line, which is to silence critics of Islamic supremacism and global jihad: “This report shows that Americans who embrace pluralism must act together to prevent Islamophobia from being accepted in mainstream society.” In other words, in the name of tolerance Americans are being asked to suppress the criticism of Islamic jihadism that CAIR finds objectionable.[78]To speak out against Islamic jihad and Islamic supremacism, in this Orwellian perspective, is to discriminate against Muslims.

Worse, it is to collude with anti-Muslim terrorists. As of July 2011 there had been more than 17,000 terrorist attacks by Islamic jihadists since the September 11 attacks, with an even greater number of victims.[79] During the same period, there had been no terrorist attacks against Muslims – at least not by non-Muslims. But on July 22, 2011 a violent attack against alleged supporters of the “Islamization” of Norway took place in Oslo and Utoya.[80]The attack was committed by a deranged individual named Anders Behring Breivik who blew up a government building in Oslo, killing 8 and then proceeded to the youth camp of the reigning Norwegian political party on the island of Utoya where he killed 68 others.[81]

Two days later, the New York Times ran a front-page story attempting to link Robert Spencer and other anti-jihad writers to the killings. The evidence? A 1,500-page manifesto written by the killer, which contained clippings of articles with references to Spencer’s writings on Islam and Islamic jihad. The majority of the references actually appeared in a single article in which Spencer was quoted alongside Condoleeza Rice and Tony Blair.[82] Others were contained in an article by a third party, in which Spencer was quoted on historical background information about Islam.

Not a single Spencer quote called for violence against Muslims or their supporters. Indeed not a single one of the Oslo killer’s victims was a Muslim.[83] Yet, without any other evidence, the Times articleclaimed that these scattered references to Spencer’s scholarly descriptions of Islam “deeply influenced” a mass murderer. The Times article was titled “Killings in Norway Spolight anti-Muslim Thought in the U.S.” In other words, according to theTimes, Robert Spencer had committed a thought crime.[84]

There is no doubt that the Times would have been outraged if anyone had suggested that Al Gore was responsible for the terrorist attacks committed by the Unabomber because Gore’s writing on the environment was cited inhis manifesto, or that Noam Chomsky was complicit in Osama bin Laden’s crimes because the late terrorist had recommended a Chomsky book in one of his fatwas. The difference is that while Gore’s and Chomsky’s views mirrored the Times’ own attitudes, the Times’ attack on Spencer was on a target who had already been identified as an Islamophobe, and thereby worthy of burning.

The Islamophobia Campaign on American Campuses

Following its grand strategy of “destroying the Western civilization from within,” the Muslim Brotherhood created the Muslim Students Association as the first of its network of organizations to carry out the mission. Universities are receiving money from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to promote its anti-Islamophobia campaign. For example, the OIC funneled $325,000 through CAIR to Georgetown University to finance anti-Islamophobia efforts. But the activists directly involved in those efforts on college campuses are groups like the Muslim Students Association and its aggressive ally, Students for Justice in Palestine. These are sponsors of “Israel Apartheid Weeks” designed to demonize the state of Israel and accuse Jews of stealing Muslim land.

In the spring of 2011, student legislators at three University of California campuses – Davis, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles – passed identical resolutions against Islamophobia. The text of each of the resolutions was lifted almost verbatim from the Runnymede definition, and was sponsored by the Muslim Students Association and a coalition of leftwing student groups.

The UCLA resolution was passed on May 24. Two weeks earlier, David Horowitz had delivered an hour-long lecture at the university, sponsored by Bruin Republicans. The speech was videotaped and Frontpagemagazine.composted the video and an unedited transcript of the speech on its website.

The “Resolution Against Islamophobia” was sponsored by the Muslim Students Association and passed the student government council at UCLA by a 10-0 vote. The resolution declared, “UCLA is a UC Campus Against Islamophobia.” Among the “Whereas” clauses justifying its necessity, the resolution cited the speech Horowitz had given opposing Israel Apartheid Week as “Islamphobic.”

The UCLA  resolution described “Islamo-phobia” in these words taken almost verbatim from the Runnymede proclamation:

Islamophobia is defined as ideologies, beliefs, and actions that perpetuate inaccurate and xenophobic views toward the culture and practice of Islam and the personification of its followers, such as being seen as monolithic, seen as a separate and ‘other’ culture that does not share common values, seen as inferior to the West, seen as violent, aggressive, and supportive of terrorism, seen as sexist and oppressive of women, seen as a political ideology used for political advantage, anti Muslim hostility, and exclusionary or discriminatory practices against Muslims from mainstream society;

In other words, the UCLA student government has declared itself against statements about Islam that are “inaccurate,” by which it means statements to the effect that Islamic law discriminates against women and gays, that Islamic texts denigrate “infidels” and encourage violence against them, that Islamic imams support terrorism, or that Islamic political parties regard Islam as a political ideology.

UCLA students are no longer permitted to notice – or more accurately to say out loud – that the ruling Islamic party in Gaza, Hamas, is actually political. Nor may they link the Islamic teachings codified by a warrior named Muhammad urging his followers to slay infidels and cut off their heads to Islamic terrorists who invoke those beliefs when slaying infidels by cutting off their heads.

Absurd and dangerous as this effort to outlaw free speech was, not a single elected student government leader voted against this resolution. Not one.

This is how the UCLA resolution characterized the Horowitz speech:

Whereas, On Wednesday May 11th controversial speaker David Horowitz made false allegations on campus against the Muslim Students Association and the Afrikan Student Union, and further instilled hate against Muslims by stating that, “Islam is a sick, sick culture”

No evidence was provided – nor does any exist – that Horowitz made any allegations against the

Afrikan Student Union, let alone false ones.[85] The resolution did provide a citation for the alleged Horowitz statement that Islam is a sick culture, and was linked to an audio version of the speech Horowitz had given on May 11. In the speech, Horowitz discussed the practice of suicide bombing, which had become the weapon of choice for the second Palestinian Intifada. Horowitz observed that American leftists who support the Palestinians excuse the practice by arguing that the Palestinians are “desperate” and have “no choice” but to use this weapon. Horowitz criticized these justifications:

People have been oppressed for thousands of years, horribly oppressed. Enslaved. Massacred. And yet, in thousands of years of recorded history, there has never before, never, been a people that has strapped bombs onto its own children, told them to go ahead and blow up other children. And if you do, you’re going to go to heaven. And if you’re lucky enough to be male, you’re going to get 72 virgins. That is sick. That’s a sick death cult is what —


Well, every one of you who applauded … [and so forth][86]

It is obvious from this excerpt of the transcript of Horowitz’s speech that the “sick” reference refers to the practice of suicide bombing and its rationale, which views suicide bombers as martyrs who will enter Paradise. The reference is specifically to the Palestinian culture of death, obviously framed by the Hamas version of Islam. In other words, what the Muslim Students Association and the resolution were actually saying was that Hamas’s death cult version of Islam is Islam. Horowitz didn’t say this; the Muslim Students Association and the UCLA student legislators in effect did.

These students aspire to be political leaders. They are students at one of the top dozen schools in America, and there didn’t seem to be an adult around to teach them what a democracy was or what a totalitarian concept like “Islamophobia” portends. And that should be troubling to all Americans.

Unholy Alliances

The Muslim Brotherhood’s grand strategy memorandum contains a section emphasizing the crucial importance of gaining “a mastery of the art of coalitions” in order to achieve the jihadists’s goal – conquest of the non-Muslim world. The coalitions referred to are of Muslim organizations, but perhaps the chief asset of the jihadists is a coalition of non-Muslims – European and American progressives – who support the anti-Islamophobia campaign. This coalition has a venerable antecedent in the support progressives provided to the Soviet totalitarians during the Cold War.

In 2008, the leftwing watchdog organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) published a lengthy “report” called Smearcasting: How Islamophobes Spread Bigotry, Fear, and Misinformation. The FAIR report focused on a list of “Islamophobia’s Dirty Dozen,” which began with FoxNews anchors Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, and went on to include the two authors of this essay, investigative reporter Steven Emerson, scholar Daniel Pipes, authors Michelle Malkin and Mark Steyn and others.[87] The FAIR “study” was entirely made up of quotes lifted out of context or misreported in the first place, and then presented as self-evident examples of anti-Muslim bigotry. Thus an observation made by David Horowitz (described as “the Islamophobia movement’s premier promoter”) is presented as a claim by Horowitz that “between 150 million and 750 million Muslims support a holy war.” What Horowitz actually said is that public opinion surveys in the Muslim world after 9/11, including one conducted by al-Jazeera, reported that between 10% and 50% of Muslims considered Osama bin Laden a hero.

In December 2010, the Huffington Post ran a lengthy diatribe by Max Blumenthal called “The Great Islamophobic Crusade,” which began with the claim that “Nine years after 9/11, hysteria about Muslims in American life has gripped the country.”According to Blumenthal, “this spasm of anti-Muslim bigotry… [is] the fruit of an organized, long-term campaign by a tight confederation of right-wing activists and operatives who first focused on Islamophobia soon after the September 11th attacks, but only attained critical mass during the Obama era.”[88] It did so, according to Blumenthal, because of conservative resentment over Obama’s election and because “representatives of the Israel lobby and the Jewish-American establishment launched a campaign against pro-Palestinian campus activism that would prove a seedbed for everything to come.” According to Blumenthal, “[Islamophobia] reflects an aggressively pro-Israel sensibility, with its key figures venerating the Jewish state as a Middle Eastern Fort Apache on the front lines of the Global War on Terror….”[89]

Not surprisingly, Blumenthal’s list of conspirators mirrored the “Worst” list of the CAIR report and included several of the “Dirty Dozen” from the FAIR document. Among those Blumenthal identified as members of the cabal were Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Newt Gingrich, David Horowitz and the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Like every attack on Islamophobia, Blumenthal’s did not devote a single sentence to examining the analyses or answering the arguments laid out in a library of books written by the targets of their defamation.

Six months later the Southern Policy Law Center published an “Intelligence Report” called “Anti-Muslim Bigotry.” The SPLC had distinguished itself in a previous report by tarring establishment conservative organizations like the American Enterprise Institute as “racist.” The new report summarized the Blumenthal article and featured one of its own: “The Anti-Muslim Inner Circle” by Robert Steinback.[90] Steinback lists ten members of this inner circle (including Robert Spencer, David Horowitz and Brigitte Gabriel) who have never been in a room together and in most cases have never met or even corresponded. It is a “circle” whose sole agenda is the defamation of its members.

In September 2010, the Hamas-associated CAIR published a “Guide to Challenging Islamophobia.”[91] One month later, the Center for American Progress, a Democratic Party brains trust, put on a panel called “Challenging Islamophobia.”[92] The panel included an Episcopal priest and Wajahat Ali, author of a blog that, among other complaints, bemoaned the “persecution” of the American Taliban John Walker Lindh, and referred to him as “an innocent victim of America’s ‘war on terror.’”[93] A third panelist was Haris Tarin, Washington Office Director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, an organization that has declared “Israelis are the worst terrorists in the world,” and described Hezbollah as “a liberation organization.”[94]

Manufacturing Hate Crimes

A major feature of the anti-Islamophobia campaign is the misrepresentation of the status of Muslims in America. Thus, according to the O.I.C.’s Ihsanoglu, “Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination.”[95] According to CAIR’s 2011 Islamophobia report “In 2009 and 2010, Muslims continued to face barriers to their full and equal participation in American society.”[96] According to Max Blumenthal, “hysteria about Muslims in American life has gripped the country.”

Neither the barriers nor the hysteria, however, prevented President Obama from appointing Arif Alikhan, a Muslim with a record of opposing anti-terror efforts as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security. Nor did they prevent the president from appointing to the Homeland Security Advisory Council Kareem Shora. As Executive Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Shora has consistently joined CAIR and other Islamic supremacist groups in lobbying against anti-terror initiatives. Nor did they prevent the President from appointing as special envoy to the O.I.C., Rashad Hussain. Husain had distinguished himself by decrying the alleged “persecution” of convicted terrorist and Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian. Nor did barriers to Muslims and anti-Muslim hysteria, prevent President Obama from making Dalia Mogahed his adviser on Muslim affairs. In October 2009, Mogahed declared on British television that most Muslim women worldwide associate Islamic law with “gender justice.”

Obama even included the leader of a Muslim Brotherhood front – Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) president Ingrid Mattson – as one of the clerics chosen to pray at the National Cathedral on his Inauguration Day. Obama also sent his Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett to be the keynote speaker at ISNA’s national convention in 2009. Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton comes from a prominent Muslim Brotherhood family. Moreover, these examples do not begin to exhaust the Brotherhood’s penetration of the highest levels of the political establishment.

Such instances aside, the idea that anti-Muslim prejudice is an urgent problem that needs to be aggressively addressed is greatly exaggerated. According to the 2009 FBI report on “hate crimes,” Jews, not Muslims, made up three-fourths of victims of what are classified as religiously motivated hate crimes – not a few of which were committed by Muslims against Jews. By contrast, hate crimes against Muslims made up only eight percent of crimes thus classified, or a total of 132 in a nation of 300 million people.[97]

To support its case that rampant Islamophobia is a problem, the leading Muslim civil rights organization, CAIR, has not hesitated to fabricate anti-Muslim hate crimes. In 2005, Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha published an article identifying six incidents falsely described as hate crimes in CAIR’s 2004 report. These included “the July 9, 2004 case of apparent arson at a Muslim-owned grocery store in Everett, Washington,” in which “investigators quickly determined that Mirza Akram, the store’s operator, staged the arson to avoid meeting his scheduled payments and to collect on an insurance policy. Although Akram’s antics had already been exposed as a fraud, CAIR continues to list this case as an anti-Muslim hate crime. In another incident, a Muslim-owned market was burned down in Texas in August 2004. Although the Muslim owner was arrested the following month for having set the fire himself, CAIR included the case in its report.[98]

If CAIR sincerely wanted to diminish the concerns that reasonable Americans may have about the Islamic jihad and the extent of its support in the Muslim community, they could do so effectively by condemning the jihad instead of attacking its opponents. They could direct their indignation towards those Muslims who commit violent acts in the name of Islam. They could repudiate the statements their own leaders have made expressing their desire to see the Constitution replaced by Islamic law. They could state clearly and unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent victims of Islamic terrorists, and condemn their sister organization Hamas for targeting them and for calling for the “obliteration of Israel.” They could promote the teaching in mosques and madrassas that Muslims must coexist peacefully asequals with infidels on a permanent basis. And they could oppose blasphemy laws, such as the anti-Islamophobia resolutions they are promoting, which are a direct assault on the American Bill of Rights.


In 2009, the Obama Administration departed from other Western nations and joined Egypt in supporting a resolution in the U.N.’s Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for “any negative racial and religious stereotyping.”[99] Egypt has long prosecuted journalists and others for insulting Islam. One Egyptian journal was banned for publishing a poem that compared God to a villager who feeds ducks and milks cows. In praising the resolution, the Egyptian ambassador to the U.N. observed that “freedom of expression has been sometimes misused” and that an understanding of the “true nature of this right” would require government restrictions. Instead of dissenting from his attack on free speech, the US Ambassador praised “this joint project with Egypt” as an attempt to achieve “tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”[100]

This troublesome attitude was reaffirmed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in July 2011 when she commented on attempts by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to criminalize Islamophobia. Secretary Clinton spoke of “the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression.”[101] But from the point of view of the Islamic states this is not about religious sensitivities. It is about religious obligations, and therefore the only way to end the divide is to restrict freedom of expression.

In a column drawing attention to this resolution called “Just Say No To Blasphemy Laws,” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote: “Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions.” Turley concluded: “Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech – the literal sacred institution of society.”[102]

The rise of secular messianic movements like Communism, socialism and progressivism has paralleled the decline of organized religion. Not coincidentally their worldviews bear a striking resemblance to the creeds they replaced. It is not surprising, therefore, that the chief sponsors of blasphemy laws and the attitudes associated with them have been the movements associated with the political left.

It is no accident that the movement to outlaw Islamophobia should be deeply indebted to the secular left and its campaign to stigmatize its opponents by indiscriminately applying repugnant terms to them like “racist.” Therefore, the left has sponsored the creation of “hate crime” laws as precursors of the desire blasphemy laws. “Hate crime” claws are by their very nature crimes against thought. A crime of violence is a crime whatever the motivation. Making it a “hate crime” merely criminalizes the alleged motive.

The very term “Islamophobe” has roots in leftist political jargon, as a variation on the term “homophobe.” But “homophobe” is itself a coinage derived from similar categories – “racist” and “sexist” – which the left has detached from any meaning other than disagreement with its own agendas, and which it has then deployed to stigmatize and silence its critics. Islamophobe is but the latest of these weapons.

The demagogue Huey Long once said that if totalitarianism came to the United States, it would come calling itself anti-totalitarianism – or tolerance. Islamophobia is the perfect totalitarian doctrine as it is the first step in outlawing freedom of speech – and therefore freedom itself – in the name of religious tolerance.




[3] Ibid.

[4] “Iran’s New President Glorifies Martyrdom,” Middle East Media Research Institute, July 29, 2005.

[5] Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, August 5, 1990.

[6] Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam, Johns Hopkins University pres, 1955. P. 51.

[7] It changed its name in July 2011 from the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

[8] Brynjar Lia, The Society of the Muslim Brothers in Egypt, Ithaca Press, 1998. P. 79.

[9] Hamas Charter (1988).

[10] “Washington’s Schizophrenic Approach Toward the Muslim Brotherhood,”IPT News, September 28, 2010.

[11] Mohamed Akram, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, U.S. vs. HLF, et al. P. 7 (21).

[12] “A Project for an Explanatory Memorandum for the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America Mentioned in the Long Term Plan.”

[13] Ibid. The document is analyzed in

[14] Claire Berlinski, “Moderate Muslim Watch: How the Term ‘Islamophobia’ Got Shoved Down Your Throat ,” Ricochet, November 24, 2010. “The neologism ‘Islamophobia,’ did not simply emerge ex nihilo. It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia.”

[15] Claire Berlinski, op. cit.

[16] Patrick Goodenough, “New Name, Same Old Focus for Islamic Bloc,”, June 30, 2011.

[17] “UN resolution against Islamophobia, Judeophobia and Christianophobia,” Reuters, November 24, 2010.

[18] Patrick Goodenough, “New Name, Same Old Focus for Islamic Bloc,”, June 30, 2011.

[19] David Horowitz, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, 2004. Andrew McCarthy, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, 2010

[20] The book was Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, 2003. Chomsky is also an enthusiast of Hezbollah.

[21]Islamophobia, A Challenge for Us All, The Runnymede Trust, n.d.

[22] Rukmini Callimachi, “Defame Islam, Get Sued?,” Associated Press, March 14, 2008.

[23] Ibid.

[24] “‘Offensive Cartoons Like 9/11 of Islamic World,’” The Journal of Turkish Weekly, February 14, 2006.

[25] Ibid.

[26] “Religious Speech Debated,” Washington Times, July 17, 2008.

[27] “Muslims condemn Dutch lawmaker’s film,” CNN, March 28, 2008.

[28] “Geert Wilders receives summons: a sledgehammer blow to the freedom of speech,” Jihad Watch, December 4, 2009.

[29] Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, “Speech of Secretary General at the thirty-fifth session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference,” June 18, 2008.

[30] Doudou Diène, “Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance: Follow-Up To and Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action,” United Nations Human Rights Council, August 21, 2007.

[31] “Victory for free speech – Dutch MP,” AAP, June 23, 2011.

[32] Pamela Geller, “Geert Wilders Verdict: Not Guilty All Counts! Eureka! ‘Today is a victory for freedom of speech,’”, June 23, 2011.

[33] “Swiss Muslims File Suit Over ‘Racist’ Fallaci Book,” IslamOnline, June 20, 2002.

[34] “Oriana in Exile,” American Spectator, July 18, 2005.

[35] “Swiss Muslims File Suit Over ‘Racist’ Fallaci Book,” IslamOnline, June 20, 2002.

[36] “Prophet of Decline,” Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2005.

[37] “Bardot Fined Over Racial Hatred,” BBC News, June 3, 2008.

[38] Geert Wilders, “In Defense of ‘Hurtful’ Speech,” Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2011.

[39] Jonathan Turley, “Yes to Free Speech, No to Blasphemy Laws,” USA Today, October 19, 2009.

[40] Megan McArdle, “Restoring my libertarian street cred,” The Atlantic, January 16, 2008.

[41] Syed Soharwardy, “Why I’m withdrawing my human rights complaint against Ezra Levant,” Toronto Globe and Mail, February 15, 2008.

[42]“Neocon Book Offends Canada Muslims,” IslamOnline, January 1, 2008.

[43] “Clueless Would-be Censors Attack Mark Steyn Again,” Western Standard blog, Mark Steyn, “The future belongs to Islam,” Macleans, October 20, 2006.

[44] Jim Henley, “Sympathy for the Devil,” Unqualified Offerings, December 8, 2007.

[45] Lorenzo Vidino, “Forceful Reason,” National Review, May 4, 2004

[46] “Leading Sunni Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi and Other Sheikhs Herald the Coming Conquest of Rome,” Middle East Media Research Institute Special Dispatch Series No. 447, December 6, 2002.

[47] Oren Kessler, “Analysis: Yusuf al-Qaradawi – a ‘man for all seasons,’”Jerusalem Post, February 20, 2011.

[48] Steven Stalinsky, “The Next Pope and Islamic Prophecy,”, April 14, 2005.

[49] “Los Angeles police plan to map Muslims,” Associated Press, November 9, 2007.

[50] Joe R. Hicks and David A. Lehrer, “Hyperbole rules in Muslim debate,” Los Angeles Daily News, December 26, 2010.

[51] Nick Allen, “Fort Hood gunman had told US military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut,” Telegraph, November 8, 2009.

[52] James C. McKinley Jr. and James Dao, “Fort Hood Gunman Gave Signals Before His Rampage,” New York Times, November 8, 2009.

[53] Nick Allen, “Fort Hood gunman had told US military colleagues that infidels should have their throats cut,” Telegraph, November 8, 2009.

[54] “Inside the Apartment of Nidal Malik Hasan,” Time Magazine, n.d.,29307,1938378_1988330,00.html

[55] Tom Gjelten, Daniel Zwerdling and Steve Inskeep, “Officials Begin Putting Shooting Pieces Together,” National Public Radio, November 6, 2009.

[56] Ibid.

[57]“In Hasan case, superiors ignored own worries,” Associated Press, January 11, 2010.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Daniel Bardsley, “Fort Hood killer ‘does not represent Muslims’: American security chief,” The National, November 9, 2009.

[60] “General Casey: diversity shouldn’t be casualty of Fort Hood,” Reuters, November 8, 2009.

[61] Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha, “CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment,” Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2006.

[62] “Our Vision, Mission, and Core Principles,” Council on American-Islamic Relations,

[63] Josh Gerstein, “Islamic Groups Named in Hamas Funding Case,” New York Sun, June 4, 2007.

[64] “HLF’s Financial Support of CAIR Garners New Scrutiny,” The Investigative Project on Terrorism, October 12, 2007.

[65] “Islamic Association For Palestine (IAP),”

[66] Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha, “CAIR: Islamists Fooling the Establishment,” Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2006.

[67] Art Moore, “Did CAIR founder say Islam to rule America?,” WorldNetDaily, December 11, 2006.

[68] Ibid.

[69] Liza Porteus, “US Airways Passengers Who Reported ‘Suspicious’ Imam Activity May Be Sued,” FoxNews, March 19, 2007. Omar Mohammedi was identified as the President of CAIR-NY in the Speaker Biographies published at the National Association of Muslim Lawyers conference, “Advancing Justice & Empowering the Community,” March 31-April 2, 2006.

[70] Major Garrett, “Congress to Protect Citizens Who Report ‘Flying Imams’-Type Suspicions,” FoxNews, July 25, 2007.

[71] Reihan Salam, “The Sum of All PC: Hollywood’s reverse racial profiling,”Slate, May 28, 2002.

[72] Patrick Goodenough, “New Name, Same Old Focus for Islamic Bloc,”, June 30, 2011.


[74] Same Hate, New Target: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States, January 2009-December 2010, Council on American-Islamic Relations, June 2011. pp. 11-12

[75] Ibid. pp. 16-18

[76] Same Hate, New Target: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States, January 2009-December 2010, Council on American-Islamic Relations, June 2011. P.16.

[77] Ibid.

[78] Islamophobia, A Challenge for Us All, The Runnymede Trust, n.d.





[83] Ibid.


[85] Leaders of the Afrikan Student Union protested a statement Horowitz had made ten years earlier. The statement in its entirety said this: “If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America would not enjoy the highest standard of living of blacks anywhere in the world, and indeed one of the highest standards of living of any people in the world. They would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere.”




[89] Blumenthal, op. cit., p. 2

[90]“Anti-Muslim Bigotry,”; “Anti-Muslim Inner Circle,” For a response to the fabrications in the SPLC report see





[95]Rukmini Callimachi, “Defame Islam, Get Sued?,” Associated Press, March 14, 2008.

[96]Same Hate, New Target: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States, January 2009-December 2010, Council on American-Islamic Relations, June 2011. P. 29.

[97]“Blacks, Jews most likely victim of US hate crimes: FBI,” Agence France-Presse, November 22, 2010.

[98]Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha, “CAIR’s Hate Crimes Nonsense,”, May 18, 2005.

[99] Jonathan Turley, “Just Say No To Blasphemy: U.S. Supports Egypt in Limiting Anti-Religious Speech,” USA Today, October 19, 2009

[100] Ibid.


[102] Ibid.