Warning: Constant WPCF7_VALIDATE_CONFIGURATION already defined in /home2/ltg37jq5/public_html/wp-config.php on line 92 Search Results Islamophobia « Limits to Growth
Kudos to Robert Spencer for supplying a briefo history of the Crusades that obliterates the whole idiot idea that Islamophobia springs somehow from meanie Christians invading the Middle East in the Middle Ages. Jihadists would have us believe that the Crusades were an unwarranted attack upon peaceful muslims when that is not an accurate history at all.
Robert Spencer reports that Holy Cross’ Crusader mascot is being axed because of political correctness regarding Islam.
Islam was spread by the sword across the region to North Africa and beyond following its founding. So Westerners have no reason to feel guilty in any way about the Crusades or beholden to muslims who want to manipulate us about immigration or in other ways.
As the founder of JihadWatch.org and author of many well referenced (and readable!) books about Islam, Robert Spencer is an excellent explainer of all things muslim.
Spencer’s recent video was a reading of an article published online in March:
The College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, is dropping its Crusader mascot. The College Fix reports that the Catholic college “has decided to stop using ‘knight imagery’ to represent its ‘Crusaders’ nickname amid concerns that it evokes ‘the violence of the Crusades’ and promotes ‘Islamophobia.’”
The Holy Cross Board of Trustees declared that the Crusades were “among the darkest periods in Church history,” but the college is going to continue using the Crusader name while dropping the knight mascot. The Board exhorted students to instead see themselves as Crusaders for Leftist buzzwords: “Crusaders for human rights, social justice, and care for the environment; for respect for different perspectives, cultures, traditions, and identities; and for service in the world, especially to the underserved and vulnerable.”
Holy Cross President Fr. Philip Boroughs explained: “[T]he visual depiction of a knight, in conjunction with the moniker Crusader, inevitably ties us directly to the reality of the religious wars and the violence of the Crusades.”
The lesson is clear at Holy Cross: the Crusades are something to be ashamed of, and the school’s Catholic students should not take pride in knowing that the Crusades are part of their Church’s history.
Yet as I show in my forthcoming book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, the Crusades were not, as Holy Cross administrators and students evidently assume, an unprovoked exercise of proto-colonialism directed against a peaceful Muslim world.
The Crusades were in reality a late, small-scale defensive response after 450 years of jihad attacks had conquered and Islamicized what had previously been over half of the Christian world.
Armies animated by the jihad ideology (or that eventually justified their actions by recourse to it) had occupied much of the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain — as well as Persia and much of India — centuries before a Crusade was even contemplated. They had entered France and besieged Constantinople, the capital of the Christian Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, several times.
The Seljuk Turks’ victory over the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071, when they took the Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes prisoner, opened all of Asia Minor to them. In 1076, they conquered Syria; in 1077, Jerusalem. The Seljuk Emir Atsiz bin Uwaq promised not to harm the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but once his men had entered the city, they murdered 3,000 people.
That same year, the Seljuks established the sultanate of Rum (Rome, referring to the New Rome, Constantinople) in Nicaea, perilously close to Constantinople itself; from there they continued to threaten the Byzantines and harass the Christians all over their new domains. The Byzantine Empire, which before Islam’s wars of conquest had ruled over a vast expanse including southern Italy, North Africa, the Middle East, and Arabia, was reduced to little more than Greece. It looked as if its demise at the hands of the Seljuks was imminent.
The Church of Constantinople considered the Pope a schismatic and had squabbled with him for centuries, but the new Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus swallowed his pride and appealed for help.
And that is how the First Crusade came about: it was a response to the Byzantine Emperor’s call for help against Muslim invaders who threatened to destroy the Christian empire.
It is undeniable that the Crusaders committed many atrocities. So did their jihadi opponents. But in the main, the Crusader endeavor was not an exercise in imperialism or proto-colonialism, but an attempt to protect Christians from jihad attacks.
So why shouldn’t Holy Cross College have a Crusader mascot and take pride in its own culture and heritage? Because that culture is spent, and weak, and confused, and anxious to appease a much more confident alternative culture that regards the Crusades as an affront.
The West continues its cultural self-abnegation in the face of the chimera of “Islamophobia” — a propaganda neologism designed to make people ashamed of defending themselves and their homeland against a newly aggressive Islamic jihad.
Holy Cross, of course, is not alone. The rush to disavow any connection to Crusaders is part of a larger tendency to remain in denial about the jihad aggression that threatens so many in the world today. It manifests an acceptance of the Islamic view of history — which has been aggressively thrust upon the West in recent decades — that blames the origin of conflict between Muslims and Christians upon the evil Crusaders despite the timeline which proves this false.
At a time when the Crusaders’ ancient jihadi foes are newly invigorated and more aggressive than they have been for centuries, this cultural self-hatred is a recipe for disaster.
Whatever happened to Plano? As a suburb of Dallas, it used to be dependably conservatively American: now the political leaders think it is fine for totalitarian Islam to be taught as a superior ideology to young minds. A recent dust up concerned city councilman Tom Harrison who called for a proper separation between church and state by banning Islamic teachings from public schools.
Plano has changed. A city of 269,776 inhabitants as of the 2010 Census, it has become diverse, presumably because of immigration. City-Data reported that only 66.0% of residents of Plano speak English at home. A Google search for Plano mosques brought up three.
In yet another sign of the confusion of our age, Plano, Texas City Councilman Tom Harrison is in hot water. Mayor Harry LaRosiliere wants him to resign, and local Muslim groups are planning protests until he does. His crime? Calling for a ban of Islam in public schools — in which no religion is supposed to be taught as fact or favored.
The ACLU and atheist groups fought for decades to get Christianity out of American public schools, but are they rushing to defend Tom Harrison? Of course not.
The controversy began when Harrison shared a short video on his Facebook page with the words: “Share if you think Trump should ban Islam in American schools.” LaRosiliere first gave Harrison a chance to get back on the politically correct reservation: “I waited to hopefully see some type of retraction that his account was hacked. I’m not sure why that was there, but that didn’t happen.” And so he called for Harrison to resign: “Mr. Harrison’s position indicates that he is unfit to represent this richly diverse city. This conduct is inconsistent with the values of the city of Plano.”
Dallas imam Omar Suleiman — who last year prevailed upon Google to alter its search resultsto conceal criticism of Islam — was likewise enraged: “When an entire group of people are targeted either by a teacher or an elected official, then those people are unfit to educate or to lead. I think that’s what the post is really all about.” He vowed to drive Harrison from office: “We’re going to stage protests, we’re going to continue to mobilize to make sure that the councilman is replaced.”
Nafis Pathan of the Islamic Association of Collin County was on board with that: “I hope the city councilman understands the consequences and accepts the demand from Mayor Harry.”
In the face of this onslaught, Harrison folded almost completely, issuing an apology:
I want to sincerely apologize to the Plano Muslim Community for the unintentional hurt I caused by reposting something on my personal Facebook page that wrongfully implied I am anti-Muslim. My intent on putting this on my personal Facebook page was to emphasize that Christianity is not the only religion being targeted for exclusion in our public school. It was not meant as a personal attack against the Islamic faith. As a Christian, it is my belief that all should be free to worship as they choose, but we live in a time where any practice of religious expression in public schools is rarely tolerated. My hope is that due to the rightful negative response to my post, that it will spark a renewed discussion about all religions and their place in our public schools. My other regret is that my personal action has reflected poorly on the City of Plano. My action was personal in nature, but I should have remembered this past Monday night’s Council discussion …. none of us are ever truly off duty. None of us are perfect, and we will all be judged one day by the highest authority. Until then, I ask for forgiveness within the community and acceptance of my sincere apology.
This has not, of course, mollified any of his critics. But amidst his groveling, Harrison makes a valid point about Christianity having been driven out of the public schools while Islam is now being introduced.
Should Islam be taught as fact in public schools, and given a privileged position not accorded to other religions? It’s happening, even in Texas where the Harrison imbroglio is raging.
Liberty High School in Frisco, Texas, recently established a prayer room for Muslim students, drawing a rebuke from Texas Deputy Attorney General Andrew Leonie, who said: “Liberty High School’s policy should be neutral toward religion. However, it appears that students are being treated different based on their religious beliefs. Such a practice, of course, is irreconcilable with our nation’s enduring commitment to religious liberty.” But in response, Liberty High School doubled down, and kept its Islamic prayer room.
There have been reports of Islamic indoctrination in public schools in Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, New Jersey, and elsewhere. Is it not possible to have a reasoned discussion about this without charges of being “anti-Muslim” and “Islamophobic”?
Given the response to Tom Harrison’s Facebook post, apparently not. Watch for him to be driven from office and disgraced utterly for his “Islamophobia.” And for the presence of Islam in America’s public schools only to grow larger.
On a recent video from the JihadWatch Youtube channel, scholar of jihad Robert Spencer told the story of yet another fake hate crime. There are so many hate hoaxes that you have to think Allah’s little helpers must find the real thing to be a rarity, so counterfeit offenses must be created. Various proto-jihad organizations run local hotlines that encourage even vague rude behavior to be reported to maintain the narrative. The jihad establishment wants muslim immigrants to remain unassimilated to western values, and making them feel endangered helps that project.
Eleven-year-old Khawlah Noman, shown in inset below, claimed that her hijab was sliced in a hate attack, an assertion Toronto police later said was untrue.
As “Islamophobic hate crimes” go, this one really tugged at the heartstrings. A tear fell from 11-year-old Khawlah Noman’s eye as she recounted, according to the Guardian, that “an assailant, in two attempts within 10 minutes, cut the girl’s hijab using scissors while she was walking to school with her brother on Friday, a Toronto police spokeswoman said.”
Khawlah herself said: “I felt confused, scared, terrified. I screamed. The man just ran away. We followed this crowd of people to be safe. He came again. He continued cutting my hijab again.” She said she was “actually really scared,” and addressed her attacker, “What you’re doing is really wrong, you should not act like this, and especially, I’m a kid.”
Frightening, heartbreaking, disquieting — and fictional. Toronto police announced Monday: “After a detailed investigation, police have determined that the events described in the original news release did not happen.” Asked if the incident was simply a hoax, police spokesman Mark Pugash declined to say. The Toronto District School Board was likewise terse: “We are very thankful that this assault did not in fact happen. We won’t be commenting further.”
The Toronto District School Board was far more loquacious when the supposed “hate crime” was first reported. Board spokesperson Ryan Bird declared that school officials had contacted police and the girl’s family as soon as they were told about the incident. Bird said: “This is shocking to learn of this assault. And we’ll be working closely with police to offer any assistance that we can. In the meantime, we’re offering supports to the impacted student and her family.”
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau got into the act, stating: “My heart goes out to the young girl who was attacked, seemingly for her religion. I can’t imagine how afraid she must have been. I want her and her family and her friends and community to know that that is not what Canada is.” Toronto Mayor John Tory added: “No child should ever be afraid walking to school in Toronto because of what they are wearing or for any other reason and I want to assure the family that Toronto police are investigating.”
Investigate they did, and they found that this was yet another fake “Islamophobic hate crime,” and one that followed the now-familiar pattern: the initial false charge made international headlines, while the news that it was yet another hoax garnered far less coverage.
But why did this incident, and so many others like it, happen at all?
Because genuine “anti-Muslim hate crimes” are thin on the ground, contrary to the ubiquitous propaganda about Muslims in the West facing widespread persecution, discrimination, and harassment. But Muslim groups are trying to use these hate crimes to impose criminal penalties on criticism of Islam, as in Canada with Motion M-103, and so when they don’t exist they have to be invented. There are, indeed, so many “anti-Muslim hate crimes” that turn out to have been faked by Muslims themselves that it calls into question whether any of these incidents ever really happen at all. It is a peculiarity of our peculiar age that victimhood would be a prized and coveted status, such that people would fabricate incidents in which they were treated cruelly or brutally. But this is the world we live in.
In Minneapolis, the local Muslim reaction over the murder of Australian woman Justine Damond by a Somali immigrant policeman has taken on a familiar theme — the old “backlash” dodge which attempts to make the Somalis into the victim.
Portraying Minnesota Somalis as the injured party is a heavy lift, largely because of their years-long record of violence, jihad and non-assimilation. In 2009 (when the Somali population of the state was only 32,000), the AP reported that the Rise of Somali Gangs Plagues Minneapolis. In the same year, Shirwa Ahmed (a 2000 graduate of Roosevelt High School in Minneapolis), traveled to Somalia to blow up himself and 29 others in Mogadishu.
Last September Somali refugee Dahir Aden stabbed 10 persons in a St. Cloud shopping center while shouting Allah. Making local people fear a jihad attack while browsing in the mall will not convince them trust Muslim immigrants.
So if indeed there is a backlash against Somalis in Minnesota, an argument can be made that they brought on distrust and ill feeling themselves, by their years of violence, jihad and hatred of the US — which Americans have recognized as a threat.
When Mohamed Noor joined the Minneapolis police force and was assigned to patrol the city’s southwest corner, the Somali community there — the nation’s largest — threw a party for him to celebrate.
He was the first Somali American officer to serve in Minneapolis’s fifth precinct and one of fewer than a dozen Somali American officers in the department. His presence on the squad brought Somali activists some pride and reassurance at a time of Islamophobia in America and nationwide racial tension stoked in part by shootings of black people by white police officers.
Now that same Somali community is bracing for a backlash against Noor that has already begun.
On Monday, multiple media outlets named Noor as the officer who fatally shot an unarmed Australian woman in the city’s popular Fulton neighborhood over the weekend, an incident that has grabbed global attention and thrust Minneapolis into yet another uproar over police violence….
The report stoked fear among Somalis in the Twin Cities, who have worked for decades to become part of the city’s fabric. There are now Somalis on the police force, the city council and in the Minnesota House of Representatives. But the largely Muslim population of Somali Americans in the region still face Islamophobia and innuendo about terrorism.
“They fear this will be just another event used to create animosity toward the Somali community,” Mohamud Noor, executive director at the Confederation of Somali Community in Minnesota, told The Post.
Already, hateful posts criticizing Islam and sharia law are filling social media in response to the police shooting. Several far-right blogs featured sensational headlines that blamed the officer’s ethnicity for the deadly use of force. Continue reading this article
With the French election coming up where Marine Le Pen looks like a contender, Islam diversity issues are front and center. A English-language news website for France recently reported on a December incident that bodes poorly for the future of French women in an increasingly Islamified nation: two women were told to leave a Muslim bar because of their gender.
Women simply cannot live according to western values of freedom in Muslim neighborhoods without endangering themselves.
Islam cannot be fixed because it regards itself as perfect; therefore it can only be quarantined, and immigration from Muslim nations should end.
The video following is an English explanation of the bar incident:
Muslim immigration has changed France profoundly.
The Local report on the No-Go Bar started out well enough, but had to finish the piece with complaints of how Muslims residing in France feel “besieged” because of unfair stigmas being attached to them. They should return to Islamistan if living in France is so objectionable, but they won’t.
And if these men are such great Muslims, why are they hanging out in a bar and drinking alcohol which is forbidden by Islam?
France has been left divided after hidden cameras footage revealed men in an “Islamic” bar in Paris telling women they weren’t welcome.
Amar Salhi is still amazed at how his scruffy bar north of Paris sparked an election scandal after it featured on national television in December during a report about Islam and women.
In footage shot with hidden cameras and broadcast during prime-time by state media giant France 2, two women activists were seen facing a hostile welcome as they tried to go for a drink in the Jockey Club.
“There’s no mixing in this bar,” one client was heard saying.
“You’re not in Paris here… it’s a different mentality, it’s like the village back home (in north Africa),” said another.
One of the women left disgusted, comparing the situation in the multi-ethnic suburb of Sevran to Saudi Arabia.
In a matter of hours of the report airing, social media lit up with comments, from members of the far-right National Front but also others across the political spectrum appalled by the sight of women’s rights being trampled.
In the minds of some, the report appeared to crystallise widespread fears about the impact of immigration or Islamists imposing their rules in a country traumatised by a series of deadly terror attacks since 2015.
“Here’s the result of decades of submission,” wrote National Front vice-president Florian Philippot.
Salhi’s business became a punching bag as the Socialist party selected its presidential candidate in January, and has been a feature in speeches and debates ever since. Continue reading this article
If you watched CNN or other liberal media the last few days, you might think there was a major uprising of Americans against President Trump’s decision to pause immigration and visits from certain terror-supporting nations.
But a Rasmussen poll conducted January 25-26 showed the opinion of voters reflected concern for protecting public safety, not a politically correct worry about the feelings of sensitive Muslims.
Most voters approve of President Trump’s temporary halt to refugees and visitors from several Middle Eastern and African countries until the government can do a better job of keeping out individuals who are terrorist threats.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists form coming here. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed, while 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Similarly, 56% favor a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the government approves its ability to screen for likely terrorists. Thirty-two percent (32%) oppose this temporary ban, and 11% are undecided.
This survey was taken late last week prior to the weekend protests against Trump’s executive orders imposing a four-month ban on all refugees and a temporary visa ban on visitors from these seven countries.
These findings have changed little from August when 59% of voters agreed with Trump’s call for a temporary ban on immigration into the United States from “the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism” until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists. Continue reading this article
Fake hate crimes claimed by Muslims are getting to be quite a thing, to the point where spokeshuman Ibrahim Hooper of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) felt a need to explain it away. He says the reason for all the fake hate crimes is that muslims are driven crazy by the terrible “Islamophobia” that they suffer from meanie suspicious Americans.
“Islamophobia” is a go-to excuse for any misbehavior that muslims cannot easily escape. Now we supposed to believe that “Islamophobia” makes them insane. (Remember that a phobia is an irrational fear, while some muslims really are trying to kill us.)
Say, if America is so horrible, why don’t fragile Islamics move back to the loving Ummah community in the Middle East or North Africa? There’s plenty of Islo-territory.
Even fake hate crimes are caused by “Islamophobia.”
Here’s a new twist: the establishment propaganda media’s narrative that Muslims are always victims is breaking down with the continuing revelations that Muslims have faked “anti-Muslim hate crimes,” and so now ABC News has doubled down: Muslims are victims, you see, because they fake anti-Muslim hate crimes. They’re driven crazy by “Islamophobia,” doncha know.
“These false reports unfortunately give ammunition to the industry of Islamophobes who promote the demonization and dehumanization of Islamic Muslims,” says Hamas-linked CAIR’s Ibrahim “Honest Ibe” Hooper. “Islamic Muslims,” Ibe? Are there non-Islamic Muslims now? Anyway, note how deftly Hooper plays the victim card even in the process of being exposed for falsely playing the victim card: the fake hate crimes are not a challenge to the veracity or trustworthiness of Muslims; rather, they’re tools in the hands of the alleged “Islamophobes” who supposedly “promote the demonization and dehumanization of Islamic Muslims” — as if its demonizing and dehumanizing someone to ask him to be honest. Continue reading this article
There’s nothing like a good list of facts to elucidate a topic, and the flurry of recent hate crimes untruthfully claimed by Muslims indicates the rarity of the real thing. But victimhood is a major value of the left, so emotive, colorful lies continue to be spewed.
There were no Nazi visas during WWII because even the Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt understood that importing enemies as immigrants would be unwise. But today, Islam has declared war on the west, although many politicians pretend otherwise. The sensible policy should therefore be NO Muslim immigration for the duration.
Islam book author and JihadWatch blogger Robert Spencer has a little list that shows a pattern about hate crime hoaxes and how they are political tools…
As Trump’s inauguration approaches, the fake hate crime industry has kicked into high gear. A rash of widely reported “anti-Muslim hate crimes” have turned out to be hoaxes perpetrated by Muslims.
Hate crimes are political capital in our petulant, victimhood-idolizing society: when real incidents don’t exist, there is incentive to invent them. The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) andotherMuslimshaveonmanyoccasionsnothesitated to fabricate hate crimes, including attacks on mosques. For CAIR and its allies, this is part of a larger agenda. They wish to deflect attention away from jihad terror attacks and plots, and to end law enforcement scrutiny of what is supposedly an unjustly despised and harassed group.
1. On Saturday, Washington’s Bellevue Reporter noted regarding the arrest of Isaac Wayne Wilson — who is suspected of an arson attack on the Islamic Center of Eastside — that “law enforcement officials are shying away from calling it a hate crime.” But why? Especially since Wilson “reportedly has a history of contentious interactions at the mosque — including a conviction for malicious mischief”?
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Mike Hogan said:
At this point, we haven’t seen any evidence that this is a hate crime. A hate crime is proven by words or actions that the perpetrator was targeting a community because of feelings of animosity towards them.
If Isaac Wayne Wilson has “a history of contentious interactions at the mosque,” wouldn’t law enforcement officials have ample evidence of “words or actions” showing “that the perpetrator was targeting a community because of feelings of animosity towards them”?
Logically, they only would not have such evidence if his “contentious interactions” at the mosque had nothing to do with it being a mosque or with the Muslim identity of the people who go there. Is Isaac Wayne Wilson himself a Muslim? Is this yet another fake anti-Muslim hate crime? Continue reading this article
A little-examined sub-genre of the immigrant Sob Story is the Fear Story where diverse foreigners claim to be anxious about violence against them based on Americans’ alleged racism or Islamophobia etc. But no violence has occurred.
Is it actually News when nothing happens but there is a ginned-up fear that it might? The liberal media apparently believes so.
The Washington Post promoted the idea of immigrant fear of Americans on its Dec. 27 front page where Muslims residing in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, say they “hold their breath” about attacks from crazed Americans following President Trump’s inauguration.
Funny how the lefty scribblers never recognize the worst hate violence — the anti-infidel mass murders by muslims in Orlando, San Bernardino and elsewhere. And if those attacks were to cease, then perhaps Americans would not be so concerned about possible jihadists being dumped in their communities.
Below, the 2013 Boston Marathon was bombed by the two jihadist Tsarnaev brothers and resulted in three deaths and many maimed persons. This attack and many others have created American suspicion of Islam, but the media will not allowed it to be spoken.
Or maybe Americans are just so darn mean that we don’t deserve angelic muslims living among us. The government in that case should end muslim immigration to protect the peaceful followers of allah. Right, that’s the ticket.
MURFREESBORO, Tenn. — It was here, in this midsize college town in the dead center of Tennessee, that a right-wing effort to ban Islamic law found one of its first sponsors. Here, too, a congressman co-sponsored a plan to “defund Muslim ‘refugees’ ” and local residents sued to block construction of the only mosque, a fight that ended at the Supreme Court.
The town’s Muslims carried on through all of that, raising their children, saying their prayers, teaching at college, filling people’s prescriptions and filling their tanks, contributing to the civic life in a city of 126,000. They felt the familiar grief and fear of reprisal last year when a Muslim man killed four Marines in Chattanooga, 90 minutes away.
Now Donald Trump — a man who has repeatedly cast doubt on the patriotism of Muslims — is the president-elect, and he has selected a national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who has called Islam a “cancer.” And a deep unease has again seeped into the daily life of many here in this Muslim community of about 1,500.
There has been a smattering of post-election harassment and insults — at schools, in parking lots, on the road — but nothing to take to the police or put Murfreesboro back in the national headlines.
“Right now, we’re hoping that it’s going to be calm,” said Saleh Sbenaty, an engineering professor at Middle Tennessee State University and one of the founders of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. “But we don’t know if it’s the calm before the storm or the calm after the storm.” Continue reading this article
When a Houston mosque was hit by arson on Christmas Day 2015, the Hamas-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) immediately swung into action with an accusation that the fire was an anti-muslim hate crime:
. . . The Houston chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations called on authorities to investigate a possible bias motive in the case.
“Because of the recent spike in hate incidents targeting mosques nationwide, we urge law enforcement authorities to investigate a possible bias motive for this fire,” said CAIR-Houston Executive Director Mustafaa Carroll. . .
But less than a week later, a frequent worshipper at the mosque was arrested for the crime. No apologies from CAIR were heard.
A Houston man has been arrested in connection with a suspected arson at a mosque on Christmas Day, but the motive for the crime remains a mystery, with the suspect maintaining he was a regular at the mosque. . . .
Below, the arsonist, Gary Nathaniel Moore, at the time of his arrest. He was recognized from a surveillance video.
The good news is that the arsonist was recently sentenced to four years in prison for the fire, with no mention of his motivation. But if Moore just liked seeing things burn as a true pyromaniac would, why incinerate a mosque rather than an infidel structure? Continue reading this article
It’s pretty safe to assume that hate crime hoaxes — particularly regarding Muslims — will explode off the charts during the Trump administration. Varieties of faked hate have been roiling communities and college campuses for years with no let up. One count finds 100 hate crime hoaxes in the last decade, and the Trump presidency is sure to inspire even greater phony-baloney victimhood.
Kassim Alhimidi murdered his wife Shaima Alawadi (whose photo he holds) and blamed the crime on some hateful American. Alhimidi is now serving 26 years to life in state prison.
Speaking of Robert Spencer, he takes up the topic of fake hate in his most recent 5-minute explainer about several crimes that never happened as described by Muslim “victims.” Do police in Islamic nations not do detailed investigations of crime? Muslim immigrants seem to expect their word to be taken at face value by authorities, which does not happen here.
It’s a recurring and strange phenomenon: anti-Muslim hate crimes that turn out to be none of those words.
This one was especially egregious and heartbreaking — or at least that’s the way it seemed. The Huffington Post headlined its story with this:
Islamophobia Just Drove This Boy And His Family Out Of America
There was just one catch: none of it was true. The article began this way:
“I’m done with the U.S.,” Zeeshan-ul-hassan Usmani’s wife told him on Friday. Seeing her youngest son, just 7 years old, walk off the school bus bruised and battered that afternoon outside their apartment building in Cary, North Carolina, was the final straw.
It seems that the Usmanis’ son, “little Abdul Aziz, a first-grader and the youngest child of Usmani and Binish Bhagwanee, was traumatized.” The trauma came from bullying by his schoolmates that specifically focused upon the boy’s Muslim faith:
[He] told his parents a classmate had tried to force him to eat food that wasn’t halal. When Abdul Aziz refused, five of his classmates ganged up on him, making fun of his name. They punched him in the face, kicked him in the stomach, and twisted his arm while calling him “Muslim” again and again, Usmani said.
Horrible, right?
But there were problems with the story from the beginning. If Usmani’s claim were true — “They keep beating him all the way from school to home on the bus” — then the boy would have suffered extensive injuries, and the bus would have been in an uproar, as anyone who has ever ridden a school bus knows. Instead, after an investigation, school officials announced:
No students who were interviewed witnessed an altercation. The bus driver did not witness an altercation. The child did not report to the bus driver any injury.
See also the special 2010 issue of The Social Contract featuring articles which illuminate the true nature of the predatory SPLC organization.
Now the faux-hate-peddling money-grubbers at the SPLC are back, this time bashing scholars and activists who have warned America of the national security threat posed by violent jihadist Muslims. The SPLC follows Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, particularly his principle to “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” The cheap-shot smears against individuals are straight from the Alinsky playbook.
Earlier this week, the SPLC published a new screed, Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists. Its list of 15 subjects was rather distinguished, and Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch characterized her inclusion as A Great Honor!
Another chosen one, Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz, was less thrilled, writing on his Facebook page, “The non-Muslim led Southern Poverty Law Center placing a jihadi target on my head by listing me (a reforming liberal Muslim) as an ‘anti-Muslim extremist’ on their hit list published today.”
Good work, SPLC, you may get a real scalp from the latest targeting! Sensitive jihadists are easily offended and may murder to protect the strict interpretation of Islam.
The other 13 are: Steven Emerson, Brigitte Gabriel, Frank Gaffney, Pamela Geller, John Guandolo, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, David Horowitz, Ryan Mauro, Robert Muise, Daniel Pipes, Walid Shoebat, and Robert Spencer. These are heroic people who are trying to save America from a determined enemy of 1400 years who want to establish a world Islamic caliphate ruled by totalitarian misogynous sharia. But the SPLC wants to shut them up and thereby endanger America for the organization’s selfish purposes.
The last on the list, Robert Spencer, wrote a response to the SPLC calumny:
The objective of this libelous new report from the hard-Left money-making and incitement machine the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is made plain within it: “Before you book a spokesperson from an anti-Muslim extremist group or quote them in a story, research their background — detailed in this in-depth guide to 15 of the most visible anti-Muslim activists— and consider the consequences of giving them a platform.”
They wish to silence those who speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, blaming us for a supposed rise in “Islamophobia.” If they really want to stamp out suspicion of Islam, of course, they will move against not us, but the likes of Omar Mateen, Syed Rizwan Farook, Tashfeen Malik, Nidal Malik Hasan, Mohammed Abdulazeez, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and the myriad other Muslims who commit violence in the name of Islam and justify it by reference to Islamic teachings.
The SPLC doesn’t do that because its objective is not really to stop “Islamophobia” at all, but to create the illusion of a powerful and moneyed network of “Islamophobes,” who can only be stopped if you write a check to the SPLC. That’s what this is really all about.
In constructing this illusory edifice, the SPLC labels me and fourteen others “anti-Muslim extremists.” We are, of course, no more “anti-Muslim” than foes of the Nazis were anti-German, but note the word “extremists.” That’s the mainstream media and Obama administration’s term of choice for jihad terrorists. In what way are we “extremists”? Has anyone on the SPLC’s hit list (and given the SPLC’s track record of inciting violence against its targets, that is exactly what it is) ever blown anything or anyone up? Beheaded anyone? Boasted of our imminent conquest of any territory and the massacre of or enslavement of its people? No, all we have done is speak critically about jihad terror and Sharia oppression. The SPLC is trying to further the libel that we are the other side of the coin, the non-Muslim bin Ladens and Awlakis. Until we commit any terror attacks or conspire with others to do so, however, the SPLC’s libel is only that: a libel. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
