Exposing the infrastructure of anti-Muslim hate

By Frankie Martin The dismissal of Juan Williams’ from NPR once again exposes the difficulty America is having discussing Islam … Continued

By Frankie Martin

The dismissal of Juan Williams’ from NPR once again exposes the difficulty America is having discussing Islam in a cool or rational manner. Williams’ exchange with Bill O’Reilly featured much of the usual ignorance, with both agreeing that, although undefined “good Muslims” do exist, all Muslims must be considered potential soldiers in an Islamic war against America. This ludicrous belief is not only a distortion of reality, but also poses a serious threat to the well-being and security of the United States. In adopting this position, Williams and O’Reilly were reflecting the climate of hatred against Muslims that is fueled by prejudice and lack of knowledge.

The controversy comes in the context of the conflict around the Islamic center near Ground Zero, Pastor Terry Jones’ desire to burn the Quran, a growing belief that sharia law is being imposed on America by Muslims, and increasing attacks on mosques in the United States. The interminable wars in Muslim countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the upcoming midterm elections, in which campaigns have employed heavy doses of anti-Muslim bile, also contribute to the darkening storm.

Today’s high anti-Muslim antipathy is the latest wave of xenophobia in a nation that has seen many, especially when a threat was perceived to the country. While current anti-Islamic voices, like the hatemongers of previous eras, frequently attempt to co-opt the Founding Fathers’ ideals to support their agenda, there can be no reconciling the vision of a pluralistic nation with the spewing of hate against a particular ethnic or religious group, in this case Muslims. While the debate stirred by these hateful voices is on one level about Islam and how to depict and understand it, it is also about the very definition of American identity.

Much of this bigotry and misinformation can be traced directly to what I am calling the infrastructure of hate, an industry which connects venomous anti-Islamic blogs, wealthy donors, powerful think tanks, and influential media commentators, journalists, and politicians. The most visible component of the infrastructure is the hate blogs, which have recently grown exponentially in number, influence, and stature.

From my position as a research fellow working with American University’s Chair of Islamic Studies, Professor Akbar Ahmed, I have watched with horror as the hate blogs have begun to diffuse from their online cesspool to infect mainstream media, political rhetoric, and the larger discussion about Islam in America. There are hundreds, if not thousands of such blogs on the Internet.

To the hate bloggers, the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims represent an insidious, inherently violent force seeking to enslave the United States by overthrowing the government and jettisoning the Constitution in favor of sharia law. Frequently the bloggers include caveats such as claiming that they are only talking about “Islamists,” “Islamofascists,” or those supporting “sharia,” but by tying terrorism explicitly to the Prophet Muhammad and to the Quran, they equate it with Islam. Under this simplistic, warped logic, every Muslim is a potential, if not-fully formed, terrorist and every one of America’s seven million Muslims a potentially treasonous enemy. Such crass, demonizing generalizations constitute hate speech.

I will focus on one such blog post to illustrate how the infrastructure of hate works, and how easily lies and slander can spread rapidly to achieve influence.
Last month, Laura Rubenfeld, an analyst at the Investigative Project on Terrorism headed by Steven Emerson, published an article in Pajamas Media tiitled “No, Professor Ahmed, the Founders Were Not So Fond of Islam.” In it, Rubenfeld attacks Professor Akbar Ahmed, who has been speaking in the media about his new book Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam, for which he traveled to over 100 mosques in 75 U.S. cities. I participated in this study with Ahmed, traversing the country during fieldwork and spending weeks in the library researching the history of Islam in America. Since Ahmed’s media statements reflect the contents of the book, Rubenfeld not only impugns the scholarship of Ahmed, whom the BBC calls the “world’s leading authority on contemporary Islam,” but also myself and the other four researchers who spent several years working on this project, three of whom are continuing on to PhD programs.

Ahmed’s main argument in these media appearances was that Americans should welcome Muslims as full citizens as the Founding Fathers did, and quoted their views on Islam, which Rubenfeld found intolerable. As such, her article is a piece of pseudo-scholarship rife with distortion, slander, omission, and outright lies.

Rubenfeld endeavors to demonstrate that the Founding Fathers actually hated Islam, recognizing it for the threatening, destructive force she believes it to be. She begins by denying Ahmed’s assertion that John Adams called the Prophet Muhammad a great truth seeker, saying that he “said absolutely nothing of the kind.” This claim is false. To Adams, Prophet Muhammad was one of the world’s “sober inquirers after truth” alongside such figures as Confucius and Socrates. For Prophet Muhammad and other great sages of history, Adams wrote, the “happiness of man, as well as his dignity, consists in virtue.” Adams believed that Americans should consider the example of these sages to create a society based on virtue and happiness rather than “fear,” which he called the “foundation of most governments.”

After calling Ahmed a liar for citing the above passage, Rubenfeld quotes a letter Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in which he calls the Prophet Muhammad “a military fanatic.” She again fails to put the statement in context. In the letter, Adams cited Prophet Muhammad in the context of a discussion on Napoleon, whom he called a “fanatic,” not in a religious sense but meaning that he relied on the military as a source of his might: “Napoleon is a military fanatic like Achilles, Alexander, Caesar, Mahomet, Zingis, Kouli, Charles XII. The maxim and principle of all of them was the same. ‘Jura negat sibi lata, nihil non arrogat armis (He denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms).’” Adams is not singling out the Prophet as some kind of religious militant, as Rubenfeld implies, but comparing the Prophet to Napoleon in including him in a list of the most famous and brilliant military geniuses in history. For Adams, Prophet Muhammad existed in two categories, that of great religious sage and also that of head of state and military commander, the only figure to feature in both. While Adams valued the example of the Prophet as religious sage in imagining the United States, he hoped that the era of the military general as head of state might give way to democracy and usher in a new age in world history. The letter is still loaded with nuance, such as when Adams wonders if Napoleon’s ascendency in France is not as “legitimate and authentic” in the context of that nation as “the election of Washington to the command of our army or to the chair of State?” We can agree or disagree with Adams’ analysis, but Rubenfeld insults him by so disingenuously distorting the meaning of what he has written.

Rubenfeld’s various other assertions are laughable, such as her attempt to prove Adams’ unfavorable view of Islam by quoting the Orientalist-style forward from his copy of the Quran. Yes, she cites a forward Adams did not author as exposing his true feelings about Islam. She also absurdly quotes at length his son John Quincy Adams’ critical views of Islam. John Quincy Adams is not a Founding Father and was a child when the nation was being created.

Ahmed’s correct contention that Thomas Jefferson hosted the first iftar at the White House is also too much for Rubenfeld, who writes that Jefferson was not holding an iftar but merely being “polite” to the Tunisian ambassador, in whose honor the dinner was given. I would only ask Rubenfeld if she is even aware what an iftar is, as the invitation Jefferson sent to the ambassador stated that the White House dinner was being moved from the customary “half after three” to “precisely at sunset” to accommodate the ambassador’s religious obligation. This means that Jefferson scheduled the dinner specially to ensure that the Ramadan fast would be broken at the proper time as mandated by the Quran, which apparently did not satisfy Rubenfeld’s iftar requirements.
The most loathsome claim in Rubenfeld’s article, however, comes in her discussion of Benjamin Franklin’s views of Islam. As with Adams, she completely dismisses Ahmed’s assertion that Franklin viewed the Prophet Muhammad as a model of compassion. Instead of quoting Franklin on the compassion of the Prophet, which I have written about here, or his desire to see the head cleric of Istanbul preach Islam to Americans from a Philadelphia pulpit Franklin had funded, she quotes Franklin saying that the Quran commands the “plundering of infidels.”

The problem is that this example is from a satirical newspaper article Franklin wrote in support of the abolition movement. Surely Rubenfeld would have known the difference. Or was she hoping that her audience would not? Franklin wrote the article, under an alias, in response to Congressman James Jackson of Georgia, who gave an angry speech in Congress denouncing Franklin for advocating abolition and arguing that the enslavement of blacks is a Christian commandment justified in the Bible. In Franklin’s satirical piece, he put Jackson’s arguments into the mouth of a fictional North African Muslim, who argues before his equivalent of Congress, the Divan of Algiers, that the Quran commands the enslavement of white Christians. Christians would be happier, safer, and better clothed and lodged as slaves, the fictional Muslim contends, and besides, the economy of Algiers would be devastated if the Christians were freed. Franklin was attempting to get pro-slavery Americans to see the hypocrisy of their position in using their fallacious logic to present an inverted situation in which they were the potential slaves. It is outrageous that Rubenfeld did not mention this context. If Rubenfeld had any intellectual capacity, she would also recognize how relevant this example is to the hate bloggers’ contention that Islam is inherently violent because nineteen Muslims attacked the U.S. on 9/11. Would Rubenfeld also argue that Congressman Jackson’s Biblical justification means that it is every authentic Christian’s duty to enslave blacks?

As abysmal as Rubenfeld’s reading of American history is, it would appear unwise for her to take on Islamic history. Yet at the end of the article she darkly and randomly notes that Ahmed is the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, mentions that Ahmed has “written” about Ibn Khaldun, and describes the fourteenth century scholar as a violent Islamic militant seeking to impose a worldwide caliphate. This is risible as Ibn Khaldun was a social scientist widely credited with establishing the discipline of anthropology and the theory of the rise and fall of civilizations, a process he believed had nothing to do with religion. The book Rubenfeld cites as a terrorist text, the Muqaddimah, was named by the famed British historian Arnold Toynbee as “the greatest work ever created by a man of intelligence at any time or anywhere.” Even if she is correct in the preposterous contention that Ibn Khaldun was a terrorist, would it make Ahmed one as well for holding an endowed university chair bearing the same name? An elementary school child would be unable to make sense of such an argument: If Tom likes to ride in a banana boat, does this mean that Tom is a banana?

Reflexively and ridiculously slandering any Muslim who conflicts with their worldview as a terrorist is typical of the anti-Islamic hate blogs. In this case, Rubenfeld implies that Ahmed, by identifying him with Ibn Khaldun, is a threat to the security of the U.S. in his presumed desire to wage “violence against non-Muslims as a religious duty, in order to achieve the larger goal of dismantling non-Muslim civilization and imposing an Islamic caliphate.” Rubenfeld also raises the possibility that General David Petreaus, whom Ahmed has advised, will be “influenced” by Ahmed’s “false teachings,” thereby warning Americans that a terrorist may have access to the highest levels of the U.S. military.
Rubenfeld ignores much in her sinister efforts at character assassination. It is doubtful that a terrorist would be honored with an evensong service at the Washington National Cathedral, likened by senior Christian clergymen to figures including Gandhi and Desmond Tutu, or praised by Elie Wiesel, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Chief Rabbi of the U.K.–who called Ahmed a “role model” and “one of the great contemporary exponents of Islam, a man I admire as a scholar and cherish as a friend”–or Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, who thanked Ahmed on behalf of a “deeply appreciative” State of Israel for doing “more than any single individual I know building bridges between Muslims, Jews, [and] Christians.” It is also unlikely that the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching would honor such a threat to America as Washington D.C. professor of the year for his work with American students, one of many educational accolades Ahmed has received. Yet none of this matters to Rubenfeld, as it conflicts with the agenda of the hate blogosphere. Ahmed is a Muslim in the media who is saying that Islam is not inherently violent and that Islam and America are compatible. The bigoted bloggers could not permit this. If this kind of defamatory attack could be leveled at such a distinguished, world-renowned scholar, imagine what can be done to Muslims who do not have this background.

Like so many posts, Rubenfeld’s article was circulated incestuously amongst the hate bloggers and caught fire online. In addition to its prominent placement on Pajamas Media, Rubenfeld’s article was featured on the Jawa Report, Daniel Pipes’ Campus Watch, Blazing Cat Fur (the blog which hosted an “Everybody Draw Muhammad” contest), the influential political site Free Republic, Tea Party websites, and other blogs including The West, Islam, and Sharia, Project Shining City, Infidel Blogger’s Alliance, Socialism is Not the Answer, the website for America’s Independent Party, and too many others to name. It was also featured on the popular Fark.com, which called the article “interesting.” Fark is one of the top-100 visited English language websites in the world.

There are numerous comments on many of these websites that hail Rubenfeld as a brilliant scholar and thank her for exposing Ahmed’s “lies.” “If this lying professor really does teach at an American university,” read one comment, “I would hope they reconsider renewing his contract before he pollutes more of our students with his lies.” Another further argued that Ahmed “was just following the Koran that instructs Muslims to deceive their enemies (Al-Taqiyya.) [...] If you are not a Muslim (Kuffar) the Koran details how to kill, capture, oppress, etc. the unbeliever.” Perhaps the most depressing was from a teacher: “This has now made it into my PUBLIC high school curricula. Long live TRUTH!” The post was widely shared on social networking sites and even featured in a YouTube video.

Some of the blogs that breathlessly featured Rubenfeld’s article do not even attempt to conceal their racism. The Jawa Report, for example, proudly describes itself as a “weblog comparing Muslims to Jawas,” the “typically short rodent-like” sand-dwellers of Star Wars who are described in the film as “disgusting.” A section on the website is entitled “my pet Jawa” implying, (but only satirically, of course!) that Muslims are sub-human creatures suitable to be kept as pets. The Jawa Report also includes pictures of Qurans in toilets, likens Muslim opponents to real-life animals like monkeys and features numerous photos of what its editors call “hot babes” because they are seen as offending the sensibilities of Muslims.

These hate sites are increasingly influencing mainstream media. Virulently anti-Muslim blogger Debbie Schlussel, who openly argues that “we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam,” this summer accused the newly crowned Miss USA, an American Muslim of Lebanese descent, of being a Hezbollah agent because her surname was said to be shared by people linked to the organization. The slanderous claim resulted in the CNN.com headline “Miss USA: Muslim Trailblazer or Hezbollah Spy?” The New York Islamic center controversy brought characters like lead opponents Robert Spencer and recent New York Times profile subject Pamela Geller–who has argued that President Barack Obama is the son of Malcolm X–into the living rooms of millions of Americans. Fox News often relies on such bloggers to comment on Islamic issues.

Part of this emerging reliance of mainstream media on the hate bloggers comes from a genuine desire to understand Islam and the threat of terrorism, as often these blogs and commentators discuss material that the mainstream media has not looked into with as much attention or detail. It is hard for me to think of another reason why the New York Times leaned on the Jawa Report, which it described as “anti-jihadi Internet activists,” for its investigative coverage of the “Jihad Jane” homegrown terrorism case, or why Esquire, while noting its “unsettling anti-Muslim invective,” nevertheless glamorized the website as “laptop James Bonds,” “thrill-seeking,” and “all-American.” Yet it is possible to analyze and understand the threat of terrorism without relying on the bigots. Just as a Ku Klux Klan member would not be asked to advise on issues facing the African American community, responsible people in media and government must keep the bile-spewing anti-Muslim racists away from anything to do with Islam-related subjects.

Government, however, is where such bloggers and commentators have focused a considerable amount of attention in their desire to shape U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Recently, an increasing number of prominent politicians, including members of Congress Michele Bachmann and Pete Hoekstra–the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee–have come out publicly and enthusiastically in support of Frank Gaffney, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and head of a prominent Washington D.C. think tank. Gaffney, who blogs at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace, recently told CNN viewers he is leading an effort to block the construction of American mosques because they are “seditious” and a “cancer” seeking to “destroy Western civilization from within.” With bone-chilling conviction, he asserted that the numbers of American Muslims today are “very small, blessedly. This is the time to stop them.” The influence of the anti-Islamic beltway fearmongers could be seen in Newt Gingrich’s comparison of American Muslims to Nazis, Tennessee Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey’s assertion that he did not believe American Muslims were entitled to religious freedom, and incendiary, terror-inducing ads and rhetoric in political campaigns nationwide, such as Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle’s recent warning that Muslims have seized control of two American cities.

I have attempted here to connect some of the dots in the anti-Muslim infrastructure of hate and demonstrate how a blatantly fallacious post like Laura Rubenfeld’s can achieve such prominence and influence. Rubenfeld’s article has all the hallmarks of the anti-Islamic hate blogs: a breathtaking illiteracy of the discussed subject, ad hominem attacks on a prominent Muslim, a crude insinuation of guilt by association, and a substitution of ideology for scholarship. The exact same process of argument, challenge, and refutation utilized above can be applied to nearly every one of the tidal wave of anti-Islamic hate posts.

Much more investigation needs to be done on how various sections of the infrastructure of hate are funded, but one basic link is discernable in the case study presented here. It is no accident that the think tank which employs Rubenfeld, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, is funded by the Los Angeles-based Fairbrook Foundation, the same group–granted IRS 501(c)(3) status as a nonprofit charity–that funds Pajamas Media, the website which ran Rubenfeld’s scurrilous hate post. This clearly indicates that there is another level of connection and coordination not apparent to the public.

In their depiction of Islam, the despicable infrastructure of bloggers, think tanks, murky financial backers, and media outlets use the ignorance of the American public about the religion to their advantage, as it can be difficult for well-meaning Americans to distinguish hate speech from critical views of Muslim governments or organizations. That no mainstream American media commentator picked up the larger, more dangerous implications of Juan Williams and Bill O’Reilly’s discussion, for example, is indicative of this reality. The more anti-Islamic hate seeps into the American consciousness, the more likely violence will result from Americans believing it to be their patriotic duty to lash out at Muslim invaders. History shows us that venomous campaigns to demonize a particular religious or ethnic group can have catastrophic consequences.

The vitriolic anti-Islamic voices also help ensure that the actual causes for the problems plaguing the Muslim world–including political, historical, economic, and cultural factors like the turmoil wrought by globalization on traditional societies–are largely ignored by a public still befuddled by Islam nearly a decade after 9/11. Furthermore, the infrastructure’s dissemination of hate does no favors for the U.S. troops, diplomats, and aid workers attempting to win “hearts and minds” in Afghanistan and elsewhere, as the toxic blogs are read and circulated widely in the Muslim world. This hate literature endangers American national security by validating and strengthening Al Qaeda’s contention that the United States is engaged in a war against Islam which Muslims must resist and avenge.

Even more seriously, bloggers like Rubenfeld represent a grave threat to the United States in their distortions of the ideals of the Founding Fathers, which form the bedrock of American identity. In pumping their poison into the public discourse, the bloggers are attacking the entire foundation of the United States as a pluralistic nation that unambiguously mandates religious freedom.

As someone who believes in the Founding Fathers’ vision, I feel a moral compulsion to challenge the forces of hate that are spreading so rapidly. The bloggers’ detrimental, bigoted views represent a dangerous rot that needs to be confronted by all of us. This is not an academic or personal exercise, but a debate about the future of the nation. If the bloggers and the infrastructure of hate they are a part of are not challenged, the pluralist America envisioned by the Founding Fathers will be in ever increasing peril.

Frankie Martin is an Ibn Khaldun Chair Research Fellow at American University’s School of International Service.

  • WmarkW

    There must be 25 times as many Christians as Muslims in America.Where are the 50 equivalents of Faisal Shahzad and Nidal Hassan calling themselves “Soldiers of Jesus?”

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    The problem is not American or European xenophobia; the problem is Islamic xenophobia, expressed among foreigners in foreign lands.The expression of modern Islam has a nihilistic streak in it, which seeks to destroy all that is not Islamic; whether any individual Muslim subscribes to this nihilism is irrelevant to the way that all Muslims must invariably be perceived by the targeted societies of this nihilism.This is a problem for Islam to work out, if Islam wants to become integrated into a greater world of multi-cultrual diversity.

  • WmarkW

    Couldn’t you write virtually the same article substituting “Jews” for “Muslims” and Islamic nations for Western ones?

  • Abbott2

    Islam is just as peaceful as Christianity and Judaism, if not more so. In one of the hadiths, the Prophet said that “the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr.”There will always be radicals on either side who are close-minded and unwilling to see the good in others. But the rest of us have a duty to remind them that they don’t speak for everyone.

  • Secular

    Mr. Frankie Martin, Your defense of Mr. Ahmed is quite passionate. However, what Ms. Rubenfeld said in her articles is really irrelevant. We all have access to Koran, Hadith, etc, etc. The criticism of Islam based on the contents of those vile scripture of Islam. When you quote Adams or Franklin, or Jefferson about Mohamed, are you quoting from any scholarly work of theirs or a passing comment made by them. A passing comment would require a lot of context in which the comment was made. Just like you pointed out that Adam’s quote Ms. Rubenfeld cited. Would you care to give teh larger context the complimentary comments were made. I suspect those were pretty off handed comments made by them. However, reading of Koran and Hadith amply informs us that Mohamed was quite a hedonistic, narcissistic, vindictive, brutal, utterly devoid of compassion, sexually perverted, oppressive person, to say the least. My intellect just does not accept that a person is a noble person, who forces a young widow, whose husband his troops at his behest tortured to extract the hiding place of treasures, and killed, to marry the same evening, is a noble character. Your task is not done when you discredit Ms. Rubenfeld. The challenge you are facing is to show that Koran, as claimed is an eternal and final guidance to human kind, is indeed that. Not by showing that other scripture is equally banal and vile. You need to show that the truth claims made in that book are indeed true. You need to show that the math involved in teh division of property is correct. You need to show that the division of property is indeed fair and equitable. These are just a few examples I have cited. Then you have to categorically show why the OIC countries are correct in their drafting of civil laws compared to the laws in the western countries. If not would you be bold enough to carry teh water to those countries andd tell them their laws are flawed. Sir, it is not enough to say that the you or the western muslims do not have much say in laws of those countries. That may indeed be true, but the fact that the people of those countries sem to be unmindful of those draconian laws against teh non-muslims, that implies that to some extent or the other they (muslims) do subscribe to teh unequal treatment of non-muslims in their countries. That sir is indeed an indictment of muslims, to the same extent as their unwillingness to correct those draconian laws.

  • Secular

    Islam is just as peaceful as Christianity and Judaism, if not more so. In one of the hadiths, the Prophet said that “the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr.”
    Yes we can find such pearls everywhere buried under a pile of horse manure, about killing the infidels, etc, etc. Please enlighten us how much of that statement did MO really put into practice? Yes, yes give us the context of that pearl.

  • AKafir

    cont’dThe first demand of the Copts is:Is that not flowing from the command of Umar? Do the same restriction apply to the miniscule christian population in “Secular” Turkey or not?

  • AKafir

    The last post was not to Frankie but to Abbott2.

  • Tom86

    Where are the 50 equivalents of Faisal Shahzad and Nidal Hassan calling themselves “Soldiers of Jesus?”Who need “Soldiers of Jesus?” if can manage to kill over a million innocent Muslims in their own countries (Iraq and Afghanistan).

  • Tom86

    Who need “Soldiers of Jesus?” if can manage to kill over a million innocent Muslims in their own countries (Iraq and Afghanistan). They don’t call “Soldiers of Jesus?” instead they call “lean mean killing machine”

  • Tom86

    One day my 3 ½ years old very observant daughter said “dad every thing is made in China except three things, trees, roads and houses”.Chinese and Indian together produce more PhD holders than USA produces high school graduates. Keep harping about Islam while Indians and Chinese pull the rug under the USA.Did Muslims kill 6 million innocent Jews during WW II for no reason?Did Muslims kill 5 million innocent Gypsies during WW II for no reason?Did Muslims kill 4 million innocent Vietnamese for no reason?Did Muslim army invaded Iraq and killed 1 million innocent Iraqis for no reason?Did Muslims start WW I?Did Muslims start WW II?Did Muslims take someone else’s land (killed local people or made refugees) to make their own home like Israel, North America, South America, and Asutralia?Did Muslims create the largest refugee (6 million Palestinians) camps in the world?Did Muslims colonize other countries in Asia, Africa, South America, North America, Australia and wiped out the indigenous population?Did Muslim nations/countries use Quran to legitimize and perpetuate slavery in North America, South America? Was Hitler Muslim?Was Mussolini a Muslim? Are Muslim countries paying billions of dollars to keep dictators like Hosni Mubarak and Saudi Kings in place to brutally suppress population of these countries?

  • zakgold

    Let’s do a little rational thinking here…Islam means “peace” IF (huge “IF” here) when one “submits and surrenders” to their (sharia) way of life and to their moon-god-allah.If you don’t “submit and surrender”, there is NO PEACE…never has, is, and will be.Look to their source documents that drive this madness like the Koran. The Koran encompasses over 60% of its content with how to convert, enslave, hold ransom, tax (called jizya in Arabic), punish, wife-beat (Koran 4:34), fight and yes…KILL non-Muslims and those “not-Muslim-enough”!!WAKE UP PEOPLE…DO THE MATH!! OPEN YOUR EYES!!

  • AKafir

    Tom86:Would you like “us” to treat the muslims amongst us as the Chinese treats its muslim population? Is that what you are suggesting? Ask some Uighur. Why do you think China is doing that?When British left South Asia, the muslims of that region decided that there really were two separate nations there Muslims and Non-muslims and the muslims did not want to live with the non-muslims. To achieve separation over a million died and over ten million were uprooted. There were 25 to 30% non-muslims in Pakistan in 1947. In Kafir India Muslims increased from 10% to about 13% at present. Here is news from India from last month:POLICE OFFICER INJURED AT DEGANGASeptember 6, 2010 : Today evening after Iftar, Muslims assembled in the Deganga Mosque (Basirhat SD, North 24 Parganas) and proceeded to a number of Hindu areas, looted and ransacked many Hindu shops and Hindu temples, severely beat up many Hindus, torched 4 public buses. The life of the whole stretch from Berachapa to Kadamgachi has been frozen.***So is that what you think the Americans should resign themselves to? Of course we have to compete and build up economically as well, but not at the cost that you seem to be suggesting.

  • areyousaying

    Not to mention that demonizing Muslims and scapegoating them make one hell of a Rovian “Southern Strategy” political wedge issue not that St. Ronald Reagan defeated the old enemy, Communism, single handidly.

  • abrahamhab1

    Frankie says:He can say whatever he wishes yet the evidence speaks louder than what you or your friend Ahmed are claiming. Suffice to read the history of your prophet as relayed by his companions and the history of Islam according to Muslim historians. As to the compatibility of Sharia with the American constitution, that is not so eloquent way of saying that “darkness and light are compatible.” Please have some respect for the intelligence of the WAPO readers.

  • Secular

    Tom86 you said:Chinese and Indian together produce more PhD holders than USA produces high school graduates. Keep harping about Islam while Indians and Chinese pull the rug under the USA.Thats still Kafir Ph Ds. My friend. Why is it that 1.5 billion are not producing any is the real question.
    Did Muslims kill 6 million innocent Jews during WW II for no reason?

    Muslims killed 175 million Hindus in just one country, India. The killed every Zoroastrian unless they converted to Islam. That is why ther eare no Zoroastrian left there and almost every one is in India.
    Did Muslims take someone else’s land (killed local people or made refugees) to make their own home like Israel, North America, South America, and Asutralia?

  • thomasmc1957

    The “Tea Party” is nothing less than the resurrection of the German Nazi Party in the USA.

  • AKafir

    Secular writes on October 26, 2010 1:57 PM: “Sir, it is not enough to say that the you or the western muslims do not have much say in laws of those countries. That may indeed be true, but the fact that the people of those countries sem to be unmindful of those draconian laws against teh non-muslims, that implies that to some extent or the other they (muslims) do subscribe to teh unequal treatment of non-muslims in their countries. “The point is that when discriminatory and hateful laws for the non-muslims are essentially the same for as different countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Mali, Brunei, etc. then it should be obvious to even an idiot that the hate is not an aspect of the “native” culture that many muslims often blame but has to be intrinsic to Islam. These hateful laws are part of the Islamic Sharia that the muslims keep wanting to import and which people like CAIR, ISNA, etc. have openly and vocally said that they would eventually like to have in the USA. “Muslims cannot accept the legitimacy of the existing American order, since it is against the orders and ordainments of Allah.”"In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. and the only thing left will be Islam.”"I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future…”"Ultimately, we [Muslims] can never be full citizens of this country…because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country”"If you don’t give us justice. If you don’t give us equality. If you don’t give us our share of America. If you don’t stay out of our way and leave us alone, we’re gonna burn America down.”"Now, all our imams, our public speakers, should be concentrating on militarizing the Muslim public…Only carrying arms will do this task.”"Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth…”

  • AKafir

    cont’dThe question for the American Muslim is why is it that the Islamic laws are so hateful, and why do they plan to and want to, as by the words of their organisations, impose such hate upon the Kafirs of USA? People like Mr. Ahmed, Mr. Reza Aslan, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, etc. who sell themselves as extremely reasonable and moderate muslims but support and fund organizations whose avowed desire is to impose “Sharia” on the Kafirs here. Have they ever raised any objection to these Islamic laws? Have they ever raised any objections to CAIR or ISNA wanting to import Sharia? Have they ever written or spoken against the hatred against the Kafirs so pervasive in the muslim world? Have they ever spoken up for an equality between the Kafirs and the Muslims? Why don’t they ever speak up against the hate for the Kafirs in Islam? I have been searching and I have never found any such statement even on “moderate” islamic sites such as altmuslim.com.

  • yasseryousufi

    “Muslims killed 175 million Hindus in just one country, India. The killed every Zoroastrian unless they converted to Islam. That is why ther eare no Zoroastrian left there and almost every one is in India.”—Secular***************************************This idiot probably thinks every Hindu that died a natural death during 1000 year muslim rule was killed by muslims. Cant fault him though. Thats the kind of history RSS and Shiv Sena Goons teach in indian schools. Can we actually see the proof of muslims killing 4-5 million zoroastrians? These guys get all their info from the hate islam sites this article talks about. Real Education is their enemy.

  • singleworker

    It appears that anti-Muslim hate have fine control over the topics discussed, Just like my gardener makes a good

  • dricks

    Thank you for an excellent article. I hope it helps to spread understanding and tolerance on all sides.

  • Carstonio

    What is wrong with Debbie Schlussel? Does she really think an agent for a terrorist organization would deliberately seek nationwide publicity in a pageant? At best, that sounds like a rejected plotline for a Miss Congeniality sequel.

  • roseknows

    It isn’t very Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) to be hateful. I was taught that hatefulness is the vestige of those who have no other ammunition, and are secretly very insecure in themselves. It’s easy to be rude, it’s easy to lash out, especially when you perceive another’s opinion as a personal attack. What is difficult is taking the time to educate oneself on an opposing point of view or alien way of life. It was Dr. Ahmed who taught me that even Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter, who seem to respect no one but themselves, still deserve respect and that I shouldn’t speak hatefully about them. There is no honor in perpetuating hate. There does seem to be, however, a lot of money in it….

  • AKafir

    Roseknows writes: “It isn’t very Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) to be hateful. I was taught that hatefulness is the vestige of those who have no other ammunition, and are secretly very insecure in themselves.”Why do you write “or Muslim” when you obviously know nothing about Islam or Muslims? It is very Islamic to hate. As a matter of fact Islam’s Prophet taught the Muslims to pray for Allah’s curses on the Kafirs. Every Friday in mosques around the world the many imams will be invoking Allah’s curses on the Kafirs and asking Allah to destroy the enemies of Muslims. Everyone knows that Allah asks the muslims to pray five times a day. One of the verses in that prayer runs:صِرَاطَ الَّذِينَ أَنعَمتَ عَلَيهِمْ7. The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace ,غَيرِ المَغضُوبِ عَلَيهِمْ وَلاَ الضَّالِّينَ (٧)not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews),Five times a day the muslims as they pray to Allah recite that their Allah hates the jews and dislikes the Christians.

  • AKafir

    RoseKnows: “Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and the polytheists…” (Surah Al Ma’idah 5:82)And His saying, “Never will the Jews nor the Christians will be pleased with you till you follow their religion…” (Surah Al Baqarah 2:120)Read the history to know that yesterday’s Jews are evil predecessors and today’s Jews are worse successors. They an ingrate people, they altered God’s words, worshipped calf, killed Messengers and denied their Messages. They are exiled people and the worst of mankind. Allah cursed them and cast His wrath upon them. He turned some of them to monkeys and pigs and worshippers of creatures. They are worst in position and are astray from the right path.History of Jews is full of deception, trickery, rebellion, oppression, evil and corruption. They always seek to cause mischief on the earth and Allah loves not the mischief-makers. They even insulted Allah. The Quran says, “The Jews say: ‘Allah’s Hand is tied up (i.e. He does not give and spend of His Bounty). Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for what they uttered.’…” (Surah Al Ma’idah 5:64)High and Glorified is Allah above what they uttered.They have accused Allah’s Messengers with great and heinous crimes. They harmed Prophet Musa, denied Isa, killed Yahya and Zakariya and attempted to kill Prophet Muhammad. They used magic spell on him and poisoned food for him. Allah addresses them,This type of hate is very normal and ordinary in these sermons. In pakistan the Imam will curse the Hindus and the Jews, while the hindus are spared in the middle east.

  • Tom86

    When America divides (religious or racial rift) = India rise.Fellow Americans, keep reading Indian trash while you lose your job to an Indian in India.

  • Tom86

    Below is the translation of chapter 1. Only and Indian can twist it.Surah 1, THE OPENING1. In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

  • Churchlady1

    Reading the proof texting here in comments makes me wonder how often Christians read the Bible? It is rife with injunctions against infidels, enemies, aliens including directions to kill them and seize their lands – all of which is also contradicted by other passages on kindness, inclusion, justice toward all people. Anyone can find justifications to hate and distrust others. It requires intelligence and study to realize how often you are wrong about that.

  • asizk

    Frankie,2)Setting political correctness aside and after observing the American Scene for decades especially since the anomalous creation of the racist apartheid occupying so called state of ‘isrl’and the unfortunate 9/11 attacks by some crazed persons who claim to be “Muslim”-I have observed that Jewish organization -AIPAC,ADL-and Jewish persons in all walks of American life have instigated a vicious campaign against Islam and Muslims and to distort Islam and demonize Muslims.More dangerously and I would say catastrophically such campaign is focused on incitement against Islam and Muslims in America and the world: Why?The answer is really simple:b) Such disgraceful campaigns to demonize Islam and Muslims distract the misinformed American public from the Jewish occupation of all Arab historic Palestine-the longest occupation in modern history and its brutal and racist apartheid regime imposed on the downtrodden and permanently occupied Palestinian People-the only apartheid regime remaining on the planet;c) Those behind these hate campaigns have another strategic objective: they aim at besieging the American Muslim community-as their cousin in Palestine besiege Gaza’s children and refugees-so that the American Muslim community lives in fear and refrains from political organization to ensure that it does not stand up to the Zionist Jews who want to monopolize and exploit America’s power to serve ‘isrl’ and the national interests of the USA.American and ‘isrli’ interests are essentially mutually exclusive-when American Jewish lobbies want us to believe that the two are one and the same.America Jews have strangely found a marriage of convenience with right wing fundamentalist Christian extremists in an unholy alliance against Islam and Muslims for they falsely believe they have a common enemy in Muslims.Americans of good well and especially the American Muslim Community should rise to the occasion and challenge those Islamophobes, racists, bigots and war mongers who perpetrate hate, fear, lies and falsehood about Islam and Muslims.It is mind-boggling that Jews who went thru hell in Europe-pogroms and the holocaust-are doing the same to American Muslims.Of course some Jews are fair and honrable: Michael Bloomberg stood up and spoke for the right of his Muslim citizens to build their community center in lower Manhattan. There are many Jews and Christians who stood up and spoke for acceptance and not just tolerance of American Muslims.American Muslims are here to stay

  • asizk

    Correct version.

  • AKafir

    Tom86 writes: “Below is the translation of chapter 1. Only and Indian can twist it.”7. The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not (the path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who astray.Who are those who earn Allah’s anger?It is not Indians who provide the answer to that.Tafsir al-Jalalayn says for this ayet:Tafsir ibn Abbas says:Tafsir ibn Kathir says:This is why they were led astray. We should also mention that both the Christians and the Jews have earned the anger and are led astray, but the anger is one of the attributes more particular of the Jews. Allah said about the Jews,[مَن لَّعَنَهُ اللَّهُ وَغَضِبَ عَلَيْهِ](Those (Jews) who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath) (5:60).

  • asizk

    Frankie,

  • asizk

    “AKafir,”Here u are surfcaing again from your dark cave wearing as usual the garb of a false scholar of Islam. Trust me:No one with any sense takes your rants/biles against Islam seriously. Why u don’t have the courage to show your identity?

  • AKafir

    Churchlady1 says: “Reading the proof texting here in comments makes me wonder how often Christians read the Bible? It is rife with injunctions against infidels, enemies, aliens including directions to kill them and seize their lands – all of which is also contradicted by other passages on kindness, inclusion, justice toward all people.It is not so much what is in the books that is the problem at the moment. It is what are the laws and how are the non-muslims being treated and dealt with around the world, and why? Why are the laws of the muslim countries following the hate that is in the Koran for the non-muslims. Are the christians following the hate that you say is in the bible by putting them in their laws? Just read what TOM86 writes. He is not willing to acknowledge that the Muslims themselves have said that their prayer that Muslims say five times a day has Allah cursing the jews and telling the christians that their bible is wrong. He wants to put the blame on the Indians because he thinks I am an Indian. See that the hate comes from the Imams and the Koran itself. If they won’t even acknowledge the hate, how do you expect them to change.

  • AKafir

    Asikz writes: “Here u are surfcaing again from your dark cave wearing as usual the garb of a false scholar of Islam. Trust me:No one with any sense takes your rants/biles against Islam seriously.Why u don’t have the courage to show your identity?”If no one is taking what I say seriously then I am totally wasting my time. That is fine by me, because it is my time to waste. Feel completely free to ignore what I write or say.

  • novaculus

    “Islam is just as peaceful as Christianity and Judaism, if not more so. In one of the hadiths, the Prophet said that “the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr.”There will always be radicals on either side who are close-minded and unwilling to see the good in others. But the rest of us have a duty to remind them that they don’t speak for everyone.Posted by: Abbott2 | October 26, 2010 1:49 PM”You apparently learned everything you know about Islam from purblind liberal fools at NPR. If you would bother to actually READ THE KORAN, you would discover that every single one of those VERSES ABOUT GOODWILL toward your fellow man is qualified, and APPLIES ONLY TO OTHER MUSLIMS. Infidels, on the other hand deserve only to be exploited, deceived and oppressed, if not enslaved or just slaughtered. These are the REAL teachings of the Koran, if you would only read it. This degree of ignorance of the enemy at this stage of the war is tantamount to dereliction of duty for any citizen who wields the franchise. Anyone who could make the comment quoted above is too ignorant to vote responsibly.

  • robund

    This is a long and lazy diatribe, paid for by the Saudi-Wahhabi faction. Hey, Frankie, do you like to be feted by the Saudi royals from time to time?

  • asizk

    kafir,It’s natural that people fear what they do not know-that is why the American Muslim Community and all Americans of good well-and there are many of them-should team up in a productive human synergy and stand up to the Islamophobes,racists,bigots,zionists and self-self-serving politicians and expose their lies and dismantel their infastructure.

  • JKPBoca

    Since when is a ‘religion’ considered a ‘race’. Hmmm…. very bizarre indeed.

  • AKafir

    asizk writes:It’s natural that people fear what they do not know-that is why the American Muslim Community and all Americans of good well-and there are many of them-should team up in a productive human synergy and stand up to the Islamophobes,racists,bigots,zionists and self-self-serving politicians and expose their lies and dismantel their infastructure.”Exactly which lie have you exposed?

Read More Articles

5783999789_9d06e5d7df_b
The Internet Is Not Killing Religion. So What Is?

Why is religion in decline in the modern world? And what can save it?

river dusk
Cleaner, Lighter, Closer

What’s a fella got to do to be baptized?

shutterstock_188022491
Magical Thinking and the Canonization of Two Popes

Why Pope Francis is canonizing two popes for all of the world wide web to see.

Pile_of_trash_2
Pope Francis: Stop the Culture of Waste

What is the human cost of our tendency to throw away?

chapel door
“Sometimes You Find Something Quiet and Holy”: A New York Story

In a hidden, underground sanctuary, we were all together for a few minutes in this sweet and holy mystery.

shutterstock_134310734
Ten Ways to Make Your Church Autism-Friendly

The author of the Church of England’s autism guidelines shares advice any church can follow.

Valle Header Art
My Life Depended on the Very Act of Writing

How I was saved by writing about God and cancer.

shutterstock_188545496
Sociologist: Religion Can Predict Sexual Behavior

“Religion and sex are tracking each other like never before,” says sociologist Mark Regnerus.

shutterstock_178468880
Mary Magdalene, the Closest Friend of Jesus

She’s been ignored, dismissed, and misunderstood. But the story of Easter makes it clear that Mary was Jesus’ most faithful friend.

sunset-hair
From Passover to Easter: Why I’m Grateful to be Jewish, Christian, and Alive

Passover with friends. Easter with family. It’s almost enough to make you believe in God.

colbert
Top 10 Reasons We’re Glad A Catholic Colbert Is Taking Over Letterman’s “Late Show”

How might we love Stephen Colbert as the “Late Show” host? Let us count the ways.

emptytomb
God’s Not Dead? Why the Good News Is Better than That

The resurrection of Jesus is not a matter of private faith — it’s a proclamation for the whole world.

shutterstock_186795503
The Three Most Surprising Things Jesus Said

Think you know Jesus? Some of his sayings may surprise you.

egg.jpg
Jesus, Bunnies, and Colored Eggs: An Explanation of Holy Week and Easter

So, Easter is a one-day celebration of Jesus rising from the dead and turning into a bunny, right? Not exactly.