Contemporary Anti-Islamic Hate-Mongers In The West

0
339

Contemporary Anti-Islamic Hate-Mongers In The West

Source: Exposing ‘‘Walid Shoebat’’ The So-Called ‘‘Former Muslim Terrorist’’ Turned Neo-Con Evangelical Christian-Zionist! [Jun 07]
Published by: salafimanhaj.com (jazaahumullaahu khaira)

Islamophobes, hysterical scare-mongers, some of whom have rather questionable stances in regards to ‘promoting tolerance’ and ‘opposing hate ideologies’ to say the least, include the likes of:
1. NINA SHEA, who as the director of the ‘Center for Religious Freedom’ has been one of the main propagandists of the claim that Saudi is purposefully spreading a ‘hate ideology’ via school textbooks, masaajid and other institutions. As a result, ‘Freedom House’ has resorted to simplistic cut and paste quotes, context dropping, inadequate research, and an acute biased partisan agenda in order to make Saudi Arabia out to be some sort of bogeyman to the US. One of the other assertions was that “Saudi publications on hate ideology fill American mosques” when only about fifteen mosques were mentioned within the ‘study’, which constitute less than 1% of all mosques in America! ‘Freedom House’ did not consult or liaise with any mosques or Muslim organizations whatsoever.
The Freedom House studies, like the poorly researched Dispatches documentary aired on 15 January 2006 on Channel 4 (UK) entitled ‘Undercover Mosques’, also fell into the huge discrepancy of failing to show any causal link between such publications on Muslims and if there was causal relationship between them on the Muslim youth in terms of making them extreme. They neither asked the members of the Islamic centres their views nor did they enquire into their activities and how the publications are used.
In the Freedom House ‘studies’ they also make the huge error, which we see committed by others, of claiming that the Muslims only view the world in terms of Daar ul-Islaam (the abode of Islaam) and Daar ul-Harb (the abode of war) “and that when Muslims are in the latter, they must behave as if on a mission behind enemy lines”!!! This is mentioned on page 13 of the document ‘Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques’ (Washington: Center for Religious Freedom, 2005). This is an absolutely ignorant statement as Shaykh Khaalid al-Anbaree has stated within his lectures on Siyaasah ash-Shar’iyyah (Politics in Light of Islam) that the domains are split into three: Daar ul-Islaam, Daar ul-Kufr (which is split into two) and Daar ul-Harb, so not just two abodes! And even when Muslims are in an abode of warfare they are not instructed to “behave as if on a mission behind enemy lines” (!!?) rather scholars have even noted that when Muslims are in an abode of war they have to tolerate the laws, obey the laws of that land and treachery, killing, stealing et al. are not permitted within it for Muslims who enter that country with a contract of agreement and safety. So we can see here then that ‘Freedom House’ and Nina Shea have a totally incorrect approach to begin with!
There were a number of Sufis who contributed to her reports and within the intros and acknowledgements there is much reference to Hishaam Kabbaanee!
2. DANIEL PIPES, an American Zionist and Islamophobic columnist. He is director of the so-called ‘Middle East Forum’. He is ‘endorsed’ by groups such as the ‘Christian Coalition’, the ‘American Israel Public Affairs Committee’, the ‘American Jewish Congress’, and the ‘Zionist Organization of America.’ He is behind the website ‘Campus Watch’. As for his father, Richard Pipes, then he was one of the architects of the neo-con methodology, who taught at Harvard University for 46 years, retiring in 1996. Richard Pipes was born in Poland to a wealthy Jewish family and specializes in Russian history, he was a leading advisor to the Reagan administration. Richard Pipes was head of the 1976 Team B which undermined the CIA and claimed that the Soviets had weapons even though there were none to actually be found and there was no proof whatsoever that they had certain capabilities. Team B claimed that the Soviets had a nuclear-armed submarine fleet that used a sonar system that was not based on sound and as a result of this could not be detected?! Do such false insinuations sound familiar?? Much of this was based on Pipes’ view of the Soviets as being a highly expansionist and totalitarian state which was bent upon world domination.
As for Daniel Pipes then he has authored a variety of articles wherein he has called for all Muslims to be monitored!? As mentioned in an article entitled The War’s Most Agonizing Issue for the Jeruslaem Post on 1/22/03. He was selected by the US government to be on the US ‘Institute of Peace’ (!!?) a post that he served until January 2005.
3. ROBERT SPENCER, a Catholic neo-con ideologue who rose to fame after 9/11 as a self-proclaimed ‘Islamic specialist’!? He is the editor of The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims (New York: Prometheus Books, 2005) which despite its impressive size is actually totally devoid of serious source referencing which the biased and questionable contributors really thought they could do justice to!
He, along with Hugh Fitzgerald, is also behind the websites ‘Jihad Watch’ and ‘Dhimmi Watch’, and the hysterical documentary film entitled ‘Islam: What the West Needs to Know’ which also features Ba’t Ye’or, Serge Tirfkovic and others. The documentary also depends on the words and footage of extremists and discredited preachers such as ‘Umar Bakri Muhammad. The documentary film also, claims on its website that “Virtually every major Western leader has over the past several years expressed the view that Islam is a peaceful religion and that those who commit violence in its name are fanatics who misinterpret its tenets” and this is also totally false as the likes of Berlesconi, Putin and General Boykin have been clear in their statements against Islaam.
One of the main mistakes, or rather blatant lies, fabrications and distortions, of the likes of Spencer is that they claim that Islaam only views the world as only being ‘Daar ul-Islaam’ (an abode of Islaam) or ‘Daar ul-Harb’ (an abode of war which is at war with a Muslim country not unofficial individuals and bandits within a Muslim country who are on the run) and as a result, according to Spencer and his ilk, Muslims view the whole non-Muslim world as Daar ul-Harb and this claim is totally false and a blatant fabrication. So here then we can see how the likes of Spencer are either utterly ignorant of this or blatant liars, some would opt for the latter as being their actual condition! Here they have fallen into exactly the same mistake as Nina Shea et al. of ‘Freedom House.’ Spencer on his ‘Jihad Watch’ website implicated Muslims as being responsible for the Armanious Murders in New Jersey wherein a Coptic family was murdered. The ‘Jihad Watch’ website argued that Muslims pretended to convert to Christianity in order to win the family’s trust, it later turned out that this was not the case, but the website issued no retraction or apology.
What is also unfortunate is that the likes of Yusuf Smith (a sufi follower of Nooh Keller who runs the ‘Blogistan’ website), who have tried to ‘debate’ Spencer end up falling into a quagmire. As on one occasion Smith accepted Spencer’s use of the term “Wahhabis” and then proceeded to guide Spencer to another sufi site which referred to Keller’s Reliance of the Traveller. Spencer’s response “the book contains a chapter on jihaad” (!!) so even when some of the Sufis try to agree with his simplistic use of terms such as “Wahhabi”, the likes of Spencer just throw it back into their faces! This also happens with the case of Dr Khaled Abou El-Fadl who regularly attacks simplistically “Wahhabism” and promotes himself as a “moderate” yet the likes of Dan Pipes still throw this back in his face and accuse El Fadl of being a “neo-Islamist” and of spouting “reformist apologetics”! So much for foolishly trying to publicly slander Muslim countries in order to gain acceptance from the enemies of Islaam.
In other blatant lies, Spencer claimed on his site on August 10 2004 that Ahmad Deedaat (raheemahullaah) had been sponsored by the Saudi Bin Laden group and that Bin Laadin did this on purpose as a “precursor to jihad”!!? For some reason Spencer is referred to in the US media!?
4. BAT YE’OR – the concept of ‘dhimmitude’ was formulated by Bat Ye’or in her book Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilisations Collide (Cranbury, New Jersey: Associated University Presses, 2002). The name ‘Bat Ye’or’ is not a real name and is rather a false Hebrew pseudonym that she uses, her real name is Giselle Littman and she is an Egyptian born British Jewish author who claims to specialise in the Middle-East and Islaam.
It is worth highlighting some aspects of her background as it helps us to understand some of the main reasons as to why she has formulated her ideas. Littman was born in Cairo, but her Egyptian nationality was revoked in 1955 because she was Jewish so her family had to leave Egypt for England in 1957 wherein they became stateless refugees. Littman herself has described how her life experiences influenced her research interests when she said: “I had witnessed the destruction, in a few short years, of a vibrant Jewish community living in Egypt for over 2600 years and which had existed from the time of Jeremiah the prophet. I saw the disintegration and flight of families, dispossessed and humiliated, the destruction of their synagogues, the bombing of the Jewish quarters and the terrorizing of a peaceful population. I have personally experienced the hardships of exile, the misery of statelessness and I wanted to get to the root cause of all this. I wanted to understand why the jews from Arab countries, nearly a million shared my experience.”
She authored a book entitled The Jews in Egypt in 1971 and then a study on Copts in Egypt under another false pseudonym, ‘Yahudiya Masriya’ (Egyptian Jew) in Arabic. Claiming to focus on the status of non-Muslims under Muslim rule she attempts to recruit Christians and other non-Muslims into supporting the Zionist project by explaining away Christian expressions of appreciation of Muslim tolerance as a false consciousness inspired by an inferiority complex and selfhating hang-up due to the aftermath of jihaad, which she terms as “dhimmitude.” Littman (Bat Ye’or) claims that any injustices against Muslims are mere figments of the imagination and are only referred to in order to cover up an Islamic master plan for subjugating the non-Muslim world?!
In the second half of the book Dhimmitude she vilifies anti-Zionist Christians as being ‘dhimmi pawns.’ However, she does not seek to attempt to dismiss Jewish critics of Israel in the same manner, such as Israel Shahak for example. Littman (Bat Ye’or) in her simplistic assessment of Islamic history dismisses any accusations of treachery on the part of Jews during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) and she also resorts to cut-and-paste quotations, context dropping and selective quotes from scholars and historians, as a result, she omits and glosses over any other positions that refute her claims.
She claims that European persecution of Jews came about after Europeans learned these “new techniques” from the Muslims!! She also argues a similar line in her book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (Cranbury, New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005). Littman does not admit that Palestinian Christians and Muslims have shared a common cause as victims of Israeli persecution, oppression, tyranny and injustice merely claiming that Arab Christian anti-Zionists have “dhimmi submission to Muslim masters”!! Even the Israeli murder of Christians is blamed on the Muslims (on pages 278 and 386 of Dhimmitude). She therefore claims that Muslims are intolerant due to their ideas on jihaad and that the Divine Legislation (Sharee’ah) “wages a perpetual war against non-Muslims who refuse to submit.” However, academics and professors in the field have raised questions concerning Littman’s arguments. Esther Benbassa, director of Religious Studies in Modern Judaism at the Sorbonne University in France said in an interview for the French weekly Le Point that Littman (Bat Ye’or) “is not a professional historian and that, though restrictions on Jews in Arab countries existed, they were more symbolic than practical, with non-Muslim minorities enjoying protection, autonomy and freedom.”
Sidney H. Griffith in the International Journal of Middle East Studies, vol. 30, no. 4. (November 1998), pp. 619-621 writes in regards to the book The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: “They [the documents used as sources] are presented out of context with no analysis or explanation. The trouble with The Decline of Eastern Christianity is that in spite of the gathering of an enormous amount of historical material, and in spite of the fact that she has raised an issue that well deserves study, Bat Ye’or has written a polemical tract, not responsible historical analysis.” He also states: “The problems one has with the book are basically twofold: the theoretical inadequacy of the interpretive concepts jihad and dhimmitude as they are employed here; and the want of historical method in the deployment of the documents which serve as evidence for the conclusions reached in the study. There is also an unfortunate polemical tone in the work.”
In assessing these claims it is noteworthy to mention that Henry Stubbs, a contemporary of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), who was an expert in Ottoman policies of tolerance highlighted that if the Europeans adopted Ottoman policies of tolerance it would solve the problems of religious hatred and communal violence. Interestingly, after Hobbes, Locke (1632-1704) wrote a famous treatise on tolerance which became the basis for American freedom of religion acts and policies, based on the Ottoman model. Even ‘Voltaire’ praised the Ottomans and had admiration for Ottoman tolerance, he said: “[They are] invincibly attached to their religion, they hate, they disdain the Christians, they regard them as idolaters; yet they suffer their presence and protect them in their empire and in the capital they inhabit a vast quarter where they are permitted to hold processions, which are preceded by four Janissaries who march in front.” ‘Voltaire’ also commented favourably on the fact that the Turks had no aristocracy and did not permit duelling. Littman’s work and idea of ‘dhimmitude’ is utilised and referred to by the likes of the far-right BNP in Britain and others who we have mentioned within this [research].
5. STEPHEN SCHWARTZ, a neo-con Jewish convert to Hishaam Kabbaanee’s Naqshabandee Sufi order!? He is a journalist yet is absolutely unqualified to discuss matters of the deen, on top of that he contributes to Front Page Mag!? Clifford Geertz writing in the New York Review of Books, Stephen Schwartz is a “strange and outlandish figure”, indeed as we shall observe. Amir Butler has noted that Schwartz beginning “as an anarchist-Trotskyist (calling himself “Comrade Sandalio”), Schwartz later became the obituary writer for the San Francisco Chronicle. From there, according to Geertz’s article, he became a cheerleader for Reagan’s war in Grenada, before finally moving to Sarejevo where he worked as a freelance journalist of some description. At other times, he has been described as a “New Age Rightist” and as an “internationally recognized surrealist poet” who had found the philosophers stone of class struggle. The only consistency in Schwartz’s career has been the frequent ideological shifts that have characterised it. Since September 11, this “strange and outlandish figure” has risen from the relative obscurity of writing obituaries for the San Francisco Chronicle and as a freelance hack in Sarejevo to holding court in such publications as Frontpage Magazine, Weekly Standard and the National Review. Indeed, it only takes a cursory viewing of Stephen Schwartz’s contribution to Frontpage Magazine to understand where Schwartz’s obsession lies. With titles such as “Saudi Stench”, “Saudi Spinning”, “Saudi Mischief in Fallujah”, “Wahabi Fireworks”, “The Dysfunctional House of Saud”, “Saudi Arabia in Crises”, and “Saudi Extremism in High Places”, it is obvious that Schwartz has cast himself as something of an expert on Saudi Arabia and its state ideology. By doing so, he seems to have found what years of writing snappy obituaries for dead Californians never gave him: some sort of notoriety and standing as the go-to guy for comment on Saudi Arabia and Wahabiism.”
Yet Schwartz has never ever been to Saudi Arabia!? And an example of his lack of knowledge of Islaam can be directly witnessed in his book The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Sa’ud from Tradition to Terror, which is a book wherein Schwartz does not even quote one verse of the Qur’aan to support his version of Islaam, let alone any of the works of Imaam Muhammad ibn ’AbdulWahhab!! Within the book there is scant reference to the Qur’aan and hadeeth, if there is any reference to them at all! Yet he does see it fit to list 57 of his own writings and articles in his bibliography!!?
Amir Butler notes: “Schwartz goes on to draw bizarre comparisons between Wahabiism and “Italian fascism”, “Soviet Communism”, and even “Japanese Militarism”. Indeed, one is left with the impression that either Schwartz doesn’t know what Wahabiism means or he doesn’t known what communism, fascism or militarism means (other than being something ”bad”). Even in his congressional testimony, Schwartz makes completely nonsensical claims about the nature of the Saudi state.”
Another of Schwartz’s glaring errors, again typifying the sheer lack of research undertaken and the utter deficiency of Islamic knowledge, is that he states in the book on page 71 that: “Muhammad never once forecast that the Muslims would fall back into polytheism, as Wahhabis have strenuously accused them of doing since the 18th Century.” Hereby trying to assert that the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) never stated that the Muslims would fall back into shirk. This is a common argument of some of the extremist Sufis which others blindly follow with no further investigation. However, the reality is that the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) stated that shirk will return to the Muslim ummah at some stage! It is verified in the Saheehayn from the hadeth of Abee Hurayrah that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) said:

“The Hour will not be established until the buttocks of the women of Daws move around Dhu’l-Khalasah (an idol which was worshipped by the tribe of Daws during the period of Jaahiliyyah).” 1

Meaning: shirk will return to the Arabian Peninsula and to the ummah of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam). ‘Daws’ are a tribe originally from Yemen and Dhu’l-Khalasah was a house full of idols and named ‘Dhu’l-Khalasah’ because it was believed that whoever circumbulated it would achieve ‘khallasa’ (purity). The hadeeth proves that Daws will apostate from Islaam and return to shirk to the extent that their women will go around the idol with their rear-ends wiggling about around it. Other hadeeth which state this are narrated by Muslim, on the authority of Thawbaan (radi Allaahu ’anhu) that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) said:

“Verily, Allah folded the earth for me, so much so that I saw its East and its West: The kingdom of my Ummah will reach as far as the earth was folded for me. The two treasures, both the red and the white were given to me. I prayed to my Rabb that He may not destroy my Ummah by a widespread drought and not give sovereignty over them to an enemy who annihilates them in large numbers except from among themselves. And then verily, my Rabb said: “Oh, Muhammad! When I issue a decree, it is not withdrawn: I have promised your Ummah that I will not destroy it by a widespread drought and I shall not give sovereignty of them to an enemy who exterminates them in large numbers, even if they are stormed from all sides of the earth except from among themselves. Only a portion of them will destroy another portion and a portion will take another portion prisoner.”

This was also narrated by Al-Barqaani, who added:

“I fear for my Ummah those leaders who will send them astray: When the sword is used among my people, it will not be withdrawn from them until the Day of Resurrection and the Hour will not come until a tribe from among my Ummah attach themselves to the polytheists and numbers of my people worship idols; and there will be among my Ummah thirty liars, all of them claiming that he is a prophet, though I am the Seal of the Prophets – none will come after me. But some of my Ummah will continue to hold to the truth and they will be victorious and they will not be harmed by those who oppose them until Allaah’s Command comes.”

Also the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) stated:

“The night and day will not depart until al-Laat and al-’Uzza are worshipped.” 2

Also the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) stated:

“O people fear the shirk which is more hidden than the crawling ant.” 3

On pages 72-73 of The Two Faces of Islam, he says that Imaam Muhammad ibn ’AbdulWahhaab was “something equally fearsome” as the Dajjaal!! First of all, Imaam Muhammad ibn ’AbdulWahhaab (raheemahullaah) was originally from the Bani Tameem about whom Aboo Hurayrah (radi Allaahu’anhu) mentioned:
“I have continued to love the tribe of Tameem ever since I heard three statements from the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) about them. I heard him say “They are the strongest of my Nation against the Dajjaal”.” 4
As the research and Islamic source referencing in The Two Faces of Islam is scant to say the least, it is no wonder that we find Schwartz saying things such as “Music is perhaps the greatest glory of Islamic civilization…” (pp.72-73)!! Without any mention of Islamic monotheism!? He continues: “…Islam without music would be like God without his creation.” Is this found in the Qur’aan? Did the beloved Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam) say anything of the sort? The answers to these questions are emphatically “no!” So where on earth is Schwartz acquiring such aberrant understandings of Islaam from? None other than from his teacher, Hishaam al-Kabbaanee. In an interview with National Review Online, Schwartz also says that Saddam Hussein, Hamas and Hezbollah are all “Wahhabis”?! Schwartz is very similar to other discredited individuals that have surfaced in the Muslim community such as Abdul-Hadi Palazzi, an Italian soofee who also praises Daniel Pipes! Palazzi falsely claims that he has been given tazkiyyah and ijaazah from Imaam Bin Baaz (raheemahullaah) and other nonsense, he has been refuted by most of the Muslim community representatives in Italy and has been exposed here: http://amipalazzi.ifrance.com/indexgb.htm
6. ORIANA FALLACI, known for her fallacies against Islaam and the Muslims and equating the Qur’aan with Hitler’s Mein Kampf!? She authored Anger and Pride wherein she erroneously claimed that “millions and millions of Muslims marched in support of Bin Laden”!? and other clear lies and distortions that she took with her to her deathbed, 500,000 copies of this book sold within hours in Italy.
From her many fallacies, is that she claims that there is a systematic plan by Muslims to take over Europe and destroy Western civilization as we know it and that there is a Muslim conspiracy for this end with all Muslims complicit, either via giving tacit approval to this “conspiracy” or with actual people power, with Muslim countries serving as bases for this “plot”!!! Her views are exactly the same as the BNP’s in the UK regarding Muslim communities and Fallaci claims that Islamic schools and Muslim entrepreneurs are all in the act!! She exaggerates the figures by suggesting that there are already 25 million Muslims in the United States and that the process by which Muslims Islamicize Western countries is by setting up halaal meat shops, kebab restaurants, mosques and other “ugly sites” as she describes. Their women wear the hijaab which, according to Fallaci, is designed to terrorize Western women. Muslim men “grow bushy beards and wear clothes that resemble pyjamas or nightgowns in public. Muslims cut the throats of sheep on the balconies of their apartments and practice other habits in the most beautiful parts of Western cities”. Unless something is done, Fallaci warns,
“Muslims will turn beautiful European and American cites into areas of “lies, calumnies and hypocrisy”!!
As part of their secret plan to destroy Western civilization, Muslims are also bringing a variety of diseases, including syphilis and AIDS, to Europe. Fallacy also stated that Muslims have instructions to produce large numbers of children at a time when most Western nations are in demographic decline, Fallaci states that, “Muslims have orders to multiply like rats.”
Fallaci says another fallacy which is that all Muslims are Arabs, even when they belong to other nationalities. So for her, being Muslim means abandoning one’s true identity and adopting that of the Arabs. She then accuses, based on this, all Arabs of being potential Bin Ladens!!! In her view, Islaam can produce only Bin Ladens, she even ridicules suggestions that Muslims ever contributed anything to science, art and philosophy.
Addressing the West, she cries out: “You do not understand or do not want to understand that if we remain passive, if we do not fight back, the jihad will triumph.” She was no doubt affected by the events of 9/11 and that led her to her extremist stances, however she was unchallenged by other people in the West and was allowed to travel the whole world spouting her nonsense up until her death. She has been refuted here:
http://www.swans.com/library/art12/pbyrne16.html
7. CRAIG WINN, author of Prophet of Doom who has been totally refuted by Jalal Abualrub on a number of occasions, refer to the radio debate at www.islamlife.com/religion2 or http://calltoislam.com/index.phpoption=com_content&task=view&id=430&Itemid=26
8. MELANIE PHILIPS, author of Londonistan: How Britain is Creating a Terror state Within (London: Gibson Square, 2006) – It has been suggested that she had trouble finding a publisher, yet in being just, it is important to note that Londonistan does mention some things which are correct. Such as how the authorities allowed London to become a haven for extremists; how some Muslims over emphasize the role of Jews and thus go to extremes with regards to simplistic conspiracy theories regarding Jews and laying the blame always at their feet; Muslims not realizing that there is a religious basis to suicide bombings.
The book however is quite simplistic in many other matters, as we shall see. Londonistan is not really an academic or meticulous enterprise. It refers largely to sources from the print media or from other media agencies, it therefore lacks a serious precise study or assessment of the very serious issues which the book attempts to delve into. On p.33, regarding female Islamic dress: “…one wonders whether such attire really is a religious requirement commanding respect, or a political statement of antagonism against the British state.” This is the impression we get even after the opening pages of Londonistan, all actions by Muslims must have some kind of sinister political underlying aim, however authors such as Na’ima B. Robert in her book From My Sister’s Lips (London: Bantam Press, 2005) have superbly emphasized the deeply faith-based aspects of female Islamic dress, which the book totally ignores.
On p. 35 she claims that some Islamic bookstores within London are even selling Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf!? Yet for such a serious claim she brings no evidence whatsoever of this or within which bookstores this book is being sold and this is not acceptable.
On p.77 she demonstrates that she has no real understanding of the religious basis of terrorist groups, as she notes that their aim is to “defeat Western democracy and reinstitute a seventh century Islamic empire that stretched halfway across the globe…” But this is not their aim at all, rather their aim, as they themselves actually claim, no matter how erroneous to us, is to retaliate against perceived injustices in the name of a distorted concept jihaad, not to topple democracy and set up an Islamic state, so Philips again is tripping over her toes in trying to understand the matter. She makes this error further on, on page 102 with regards to Muslims who do not agree with the term ‘Islamic terrorism’: “True, the IRA were Catholics and their adversaries were Protestants. But their cause was not Catholicism. It was a united Ireland. They did not want to impose the authority of the Pope upon Britain…the Islamists who want to defeat the West in the name of Islam, impose Sharia law and re-establish the medieval caliphate throughout the world.” So here for example she lumps all ‘Islamists’ into one homogenous group without thoroughly distinguishing between the ideas at hand, as not all ‘Islamists’ utilise terror like the IRA used to do or as al-Qaa’idah does currently.
With regards to the police she states on page 101:“But since Muslims tend to be alienated by any action that suggests there is anything wrong with their community or religion, this meant the police had to deny the nature of Islamist terrorism altogether.” This is absolute nonsense, it is as if she is totally oblivious to what took place in Forest Gate, the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes and a variety of other signs of “police denial of Islamic terrorism” which Philips refers to.
On p.103, she says: “The New Testament does not advocate the killing of the unfaithful. The Koran does.” Does it? Philips brings no quote from the Qur’aan whatsoever and thus deceptively mentions this with no reflection on what the Qur’aan actually states, such as:

“But if they incline towards peace, you too incline to it. And trust in Allah. Verily, He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower.” [al-Anfaal (8):61-2]

Even during open war, the Believers are ordered with compassion and to continue the greater jihad of calling to the Truth:

“And if any of the pagan (enemy) seeks your protection then grant it – in order that he may hear the Word of Allah – and escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men who know not.” [at-Tawbah (9):6]

As for non-combatants or civilians, we read:

“Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion, nor drove you out of your homes. Verily Allah loves those who deal with equity.” [al-Mumtahanah (60):8]

She also condemns multiculturalism and equal opportunities (!?), saying on p.111: “Institutions have been instructed to teach themselves that they are intrinsically racist and to reprogramme their minds in nonjudgmentalism.” Hereby seeming to condone discrimination? This is the logical outcome of Philips’ agenda, as she rarely refers to incidents of discrimination and prejudice at all within her petit work, unless of course it is against Jews as we shall see later. Melanie Philips, like Bat Ye’or, also constantly refers to the “Judeo-Christian heritage” thereby including the Jews within that which she holds to be the dominant British culture that all others have to fall in line with. As a logical result of this, she redefines British nationalism to innately include Jews and she does this by making constant reference to notions of a ‘Judeo-Christian’ British nation. By doing this it seeks to deny other minority communities their cultures, as they do not ‘fit-in’ with the pre-set ‘Judeo-Christian’ British way of life. This is even all the more applicable when it comes to dealing with Muslims who have an all-encompassing way of life. The reality however, which the author made no reference to whatsoever within her petit work, was the fact that after the Jews had been expelled from England for 350 years after the 1290 CE edict against their presence in England, Oliver Cromwell was the one who allowed their return to England and practice their religion, in what came to be known as the ‘Cromwellian Protectorate’ in 1695 CE. Cromwell’s main reason for this was for trade and economic reasons as opposed to any notions of sharing a ‘Judeo-Christian heritage.’ In fact, around this time i Europe Christians did not want the term ‘Judeo’ appended to their religion in any way, shape or form! Therefore, the term ‘Judeo-Christian’ which the author of Londonistan makes constant referral to is rather flawed, not to mention the fact that the term is a modern term developed out of American political developments in the 1940s as mentioned by Arthur A. Cohen in his book The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition (New York: Harper and Row, 1970). Maybe Melanie Philips should propose her concept of British nationhood to the likes of the Christian farright, to see if they would accept her notion of a ‘Judeo-Christian’ British heritage?!
With regards to the book lacking any academic basis, this is further evident in the author’s lack of awareness of trends in academia. So for example, on page 161-62 we find: “In other words, British universities are teaching the Koran not as an objective and detached analysis of a religion, as would be the case with teaching any other religion…So British universities, the supposed stewards of rationality, have been pushed into becoming instead tools of religious indoctrination. And any backsliding into the realm of objective scholarship is punished.” This quote is enough to indicate the author’s detachment from academia and her disconnection from Western research, criticism and enquiry. If aware, one would immediately know that SOAS (University of London) has a special ‘origins of Islam’ course, which is far from being an example of that which “panders to Muslim sensitivities”!
On p. 155 the author states: “In many areas, old churches, public houses or other buildings are being bought by Muslims and converted into mosques, along with brand new mosques that are springing up, backed by the kind of international funds that no other faith groups can command…” This is one of the most absurd statements mentioned in Londonistan, it is well known that funds are generated within Muslim communities and by attendees of mosques, examples of external donors helping to build masaajid are few compared to their efforts of Muslim communities themselves.
However, according to the Londonistan’s tirade against the Muslim community in the UK, everything in Britain is in favour of the Muslims. A further example of this is on p.154: “British Muslims, however, are increasingly pushing for their culture to be highly visible and given parity in the public sphere.” This is the problem with her simplistic analysis, nowhere in her book is there mention of the fact that Jewish schools for example have been state-funded for faith schooling and it took Muslims ages to achieve this! Even now, wherein the Muslim population is quite large, there are still only six state funded Islamic schools while there are thirty-six state-funded Jewish schools!?
Also quite surprising is her simplistic assessment of Shaykh ‘AbdurRahmaan as-Sudays on pages 155-56 of Londonistan, it was also an issue with which she totally surprised and bedazzled Anas Tikriti (of the MAB) on the Radio 4 show Moral Maze with in early July 2005 CE. Yet quite simply, Philips has not mentioned a shred of evidence from where Shaykh Sudays was supposed to have made the statements, this is the first issue. Where did Shaykh Sudays make these statements? In which Masjid did he make the statements? When did he make the statements? All of this is unbeknown to the author, so what is her source for her vitriol against Shaykh Sudays, an online article by one Tom Gross?! Further, some of the statements which are mentioned are in the Qur’aan! But they obviously need to be understood in light of the scholars of tafseer, not in light of anti-Islamic elements.
Throughout Londonistan, we are told that Muslims are transgressing against ‘the British’ state and people, refusing to fit in and implementing their ways onto ‘the British.’ Yet the author herself launches her own tirade against ‘the British’ saying: “As soon as the issue of Israel enters the picture, the British reaction to terror becomes ‘quite positive.’ Far from springing to Israel’s defence as a fellow target, the British become passive, mute and even sympathetic to the murderous sentiments being screamed by the marching jihadists.” Who then needs to be taught about British values? After Muslims have been accused of not being British enough, she herself condemns, criticises and splits off from the feelings of ‘the British’ (purely on the basis of alliance with Israel) thus demonstrating that her own ideas have no connection to ‘the British.’
The issue of Israel is also briefly dealt with in Londonistan, however the book equates those who criticize Israel as being hardcore anti-Semites and this is simplistic. On page 164 she states, in very simplistic terms that: “Muslim hostility to Israel is rooted in Muslim hostility to Jews.” Regarding Israel we find: “…it has been demonised in a way that goes way beyond legitimate criticism, because the attacks are based on distortions and outrageous double standards.” (!!) Only Israel is demonized according to Londonistan and nothing else!? However, what is neatly absent from Londonistan is any mention of Jewish opposition to Israel: “Israel’s attempt to defend itself is represented as a desire for vengeance and punishment-tapping into the ancient prejudice that the Jews are motivated by the doctrine of ‘an eye for an eye’…” (p.196) Yet Philips makes no mention of the fact that a number of Jews, including some orthodox Jews, have been vehemently opposed to Israel and its policies, so is this “prejudice against Jews”? Israel Shahak, a victim of anti-semitism and the Jewish holocaust, author of Jewish History, Jewish Religion – The Weight of Three Thousand Years (London: Pluto Press, 1994) wherein he holds that there are entrenched supremacist notions within Jewish society and law. Also there are other Hasidic orthodox Jews who are all vehemently anti-Israel claiming that the very idea of a Jewish state is a Zionist plan which opposes the teachings of the Torah, the latter face particular intimidation by pro-Israeli Zionists. There are many other humanist Jews who totally oppose Israel, but have been conveniently omitted from the pages of Londonistan.
She mentions some correct and true statements in regards to the UK government Home Office Muslim taskforce and how it became a mere excuse to make Muslims out to be in need of a whole range of demands without looking at all the religious basis of extremism, and this is true. However, she states on p.264 that: “No other minority in Britain had ever presented the state with a shopping list of demands for special treatment…”
Londonistan represents but the rantings of a highly opinionated columnist and is not really of the caliber of detailed studies into the issue. Furthermore, Londonistan with its heavy reliance on journalism and the author coming from this angle indicates that in all honesty Londonistan has no real serious or meticulous grasp of issues such as Islam, Muslims and religious issues as the author has no real scholarly or academic background in such matters.
9. PATRICK SOOKHDEO, an alleged former Muslim originally from Guyana, who is now a British Anglican Canon and director of the obscure ‘Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity’ in London. Also known for his context-dropping, cut and paste quotations and wild claims about Islaam and Muslims, he is the author of Islam: The Challenge to the Church (Pewsey: Issac Publishing, 2006); Islam in Britain: The British Muslim Community in February 2005 (Pewsey: Isaac Publishing, 2005); Understanding Islamic Terrorism: The Islamic Doctrine of War (Pewsey: Isaac Publishing, 2004); A People Betrayed: The Impact of Islamisation on the Christian Community in Pakistan, Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications, 2002 and Pewsey, Wiltshire: Isaac Publishing, 2002) and other works.
In the London Spectator magazine in July 2005 Sookhdeo wrote an article entitled “The Myth of a Moderate Islam” wherein he claimed that as the likes of the terrorists and extremists merely say that they are doing their actions in the name of Islaam they are therefore to be seen as representing Islaam!? Sookhdeo also states within the article that “Muslims must with honesty, recognise the violence that has existed in their history” as if Muslims do not recognise or comment on it!!? Muslims recognise moreso than much of Bani Aadam, not to mention that it is rather the case that many British people deny the atrocities of colonialism and imperialism, or are at least totally ignorant of the history; many Americans deny the impact of slavery on the African-American and of the destruction of the Native-American; in Germany, the people try to play down the importance of the Holocaust to the extent that Germany has even asked some EU countries to remove any mention of Germany’s role in the Holocaust and the Second World War from school and college textbooks!!? Even Bernard Lewis noted that “the Christian attitude towards Islam was far more bigoted and intolerant than that of the Muslims towards Christianity.” (Bernard Lewis, The Muslim Discovery of Europe (London: Phoenix, 1982), p.297)

The fact of the matter for Sookhdeo to admit himself is that Christian civilisation has given rise to more atrocities than the Muslim world has. Saint Augustine stated “lead them in”—i.e. “force them to convert” and the Qur’aan says the exact opposite: “There is no compulsion in religion” [Baqarah (2):256].

Most of the wars in the 20th century have had little to do with Muslims and the vast majority of the estimated 250 million deaths out of warfare during the 20th century have mostly come from the Western ‘Christian’ world, with the Muslims accounting for about 10 million of these deaths. The greatest death totals come from World War 1, about 20 million, at least 90 % of which were inflicted by “Christians”, and World War 2, 90 million, at least 50% of which were inflicted by “Christians,” the majority of the rest occurring in the Far East. There was also the slaughter of 900,000 Rwandans in 1994 in a population that was over 90 % Christian, this in fact led to Rwandans embracing Islaam! See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3561365.stm
Also the genocide of over 300,000 Muslims and systematic rape of over 100,000 Muslim women by Christian Serbs in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995. So statistically, Christian Civilization is the bloodiest and most violent of all civilizations in all of history, and is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths. Here is a quotation from Pope Nicholas the fifth, who gave Alfonso the fifth of Portugal in Romanus Pontifex 1454 CE the right to: “…invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wherever they live, along with their kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, lordships and goods, both chattels and real estate, that they hold and possess … to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery and to take for himself and his heirs their kingdoms…” (Quoted in Muldoon, Popes, Lawyers and Infidels: The Church and the Non-Christian World 1250-1550, Liverpool University Press, 1979, p.134)
At its outset, the Anglican church had no better a record of toleration in regard to non-Anglican communions. Of course, time-bound references cannot be taken as our criterion. Here is another time-bound reference; the Charter which the Muslim ruler, Umar, agreed with the Christians of Jerusalem:
“In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. This charter is granted by ‘Umar, Servant of Allah and Prince of the Believers, to the people of Aelia. He grants them security for their persons and their properties, for their churches and their crosses, the little and the great, and for the adherents of the Christian religion. Neither shall their churches be destroyed, nor their substances or areas, nor their crosses or any of their properties, be reduced in any manner. They shall not be coerced in any matter pertaining to their religion, and they shall not be harmed. Nor will any Jews be permitted to live with them in Aelia. Upon the people of Aelia falls the obligation to pay the jizyah; just as the people of Mada’in (Persia) do, as well as to evict from their midst the Byzantine army and the thieves. Whoever of these leaves Aelia will be granted security of person and property until he reaches his destination. Whoever decides to stay in Aelia will also be granted the same and share with the people of Aelia, in their rights and the jizyah. The same applies to the people of Aelia as well as to any other person. Anyone can march with the Byzantines, stay in Aelia or return to his home country, and has until the harvesting of crops to decided. Allah attests to the contents of this treaty, and so do His Prophet, his successors and the believers. Signed: ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab Witnessed by: Khalid ibn al-Walid, ‘Amr ibn al-‘As, ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf and Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. Executed in the year 15 AH.” (Quoted in Alistair Duncan, 1972, The Noble Sanctuary, London: Longman Group Ltd, p.22)
10. ‘AYAAN HIRSI ALI’, it was just a matter of time before she would be exposed, we will put her name in inverted commas as this is the name that she calls herself and is not her full real name, as we do not know what her real name is, we will put it in inverted commas.
‘Ayaan Hirsi Ali’ is a Somaalee apostate pseudo-feminist, a former right-wing Dutch MP for the Dutch VVD party and self-confessed immigration cheat!! Yet chosen by Time magazine as being “one of the most influential people of 2005”?! Influential for whom and for what we ask? For being a self-confessed immigration cheat? After many Muslims were initially concerned about some of her wild claims and her false propaganda, the country to where she ‘fled’ has now exposed her deception and has stripped her of her beloved Dutch passport and citizenship! (This was a documentary on a program entitled Zembla that is aired in Holland)
‘Hirsi ‘Ali’ rose to notoriety in the West after her extremist claims about Islaam and by calling upon non-Muslim governments to do more to stand up for western values in order to fight against Islaam. Her extremist opinions, which were not justified with any evidence, and her open kufr regarding Islaam was given much media focus. A few years ago, on TV, ‘Ayaan Hirsi ‘Ali’ exclaimed that she had “not been Muslim for five years”, she reiterates this in her interviews. Yet in her recent book The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam, she regularly and dishonestly says “we Muslims”!? On BBC2’s Newsnight (aired in the UK) in June 2006 she also made herself look utterly pathetic by claiming that she is arguing as a Muslim, but then the interviewer asked her how on earth she could have a Muslim audience when she was an atheist!?
In The Caged Virgin she demonstrates not only utter ignorance of Islaam and poor research, but also presents a meagre understanding of history. She states for example: “Every Muslim, from the beginnings of Islam to the present day, is raised in the belief that all knowledge can be found in the Koran.” “For Muslim children the study of biology and history can be very confusing.” So here she is either absolutely ignorant of Islaam or being deceptive, as the Muslim scholars note that knowledge of the mudane affairs can be sought, the only distinction that they make is that it is not as praiseworthy, but it can still be sought based on the hadeeth of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wassallam), found in the ‘Book of Knowledge’ in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree, where he said to the people who were artificially inseminating the date-palms “you know better about your dunya affairs.” Furthermore, many of the bona-fide Islamic scholars have noted that worldy knowledge and sciences for human endeavour is a collective responsibility to acquire. For more on this see Imaam’Uthaymeen’s (raheemahullaah) words about knowledge:
http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/Knowledge.pdf
So her claim that history and biology can be “confusing for Muslim children” (!!?) is again totally false, as the Muslims have studied these subjects for centuries with no difficulties whatsoever, in fact in Muslim Spain for example it was part of the curriculum to study these subjects, and if it was so “confusing for Muslim children” why are the subjects studied today in Muslim countries and within Islamic schools in Europe and the US?! So ‘Ayaan Hisri Ali’ hasn’t got a clue what she is talking about.
She also argues that Islaam has obstructed individual freedoms and that the individual is not valued in Islaam?! Another clear indication of her deceptive methods is in discussing the issue of female genital mutilation, she states that the practice was “spread by Islam” when anyone who has even an atom’s weight of knowledge of this issue knows that it goes back to the Pharoanic period and even according to the United Nations Population Fund, FGM is practiced in sub-Saharan Africa by Animists, Christians (Coptic and other), Muslims and Ethiopian Jews. However, only Islaam is impugned within the simplistic, biased and poorly researched writing of the one called ‘Ayaan Hirsi Ali’, yet what can be expected from a self-confessed immigration cheat?
She also states in The Caged Virgin that Muslim women are in some way incapable of speaking up for themselves and need Western women to do that for them, or Westernised/Naturalised Euro or US women at least to speak up for them?! This in itself indicates the extent to which ‘Ayaan Hirsi Ali’ has internalized Orientalist thinking, she states, in an example wherein she puts herself forward as some sort of reference point for Muslim women, “The [reason] I am determined to make my voice heard is that Muslim women are scarcely listened to, and they need a woman to speak out on their behalf.” Women during the epoch of the salaf were referred to by men for Islamic knowledge and asked to settle disputes over issues related to ‘ilm, this was during the epoch of early Islaam, which ‘Hirsi Ali’ is obviously ignorant about.
The book, Caged Virgin, is rather an insult to Muslim women, if indeed it is evendirected to them, how such a poorly researched and factually inaccurate piece of work can somehow be taken as rallying cry for Muslim women in the West is beyond many Muslim women.
‘Ayaan Hirsi Ali’ was the one who kicked off a fitnah in Holland/the Netherlands and increased the oppression of the Muslims there has she initiated a ‘play’ in Holland wherein verses of the Qur’aan were used in a despicable manner and Muslim women were in fact mocked. This is what many non-Muslims do not realise, is that ‘Ayaan Hirsi ‘Ali’ claims to represent Islaam, yet the majority of Muslim women were utterly appalled by her disgusting play! This resulted in the assassination of the director of the play, Theo Van Gogh in 2004 the grandson of the world famous artist and ironically was vocally opposed to feminism! After this, the Muslims in that country were subject to a variety of draconian legislations all in order to suppress and restrict the development of Islaam and the Muslims there.
In any case, the Dutch have a history of turning the tables on its ‘minority communities’ and during World War 2, 80% of Dutch Jews were deported to concentration camps and subsequently gassed or massacred by the Nazis. The Dutch Jews were often escorted to the Nazis by the Dutch themselves as the Dutch wanted to free themselves from the Jews and avoid being conquered by the Nazis. Subsequently, ‘Hirsi Ali’ fled to America for three months and then was under 24 hour guard and police protection in The Hague. Her similitude therefore, was of one who held the West to be intrinsically liberated and as a result the West was obviously her desire and ambition whilst she was in East Africa. Initially ‘Hirsi ‘Ali’ had claimed that she came to Europe as a refugee in 1992, fleeing from a forced marriage in war-torn Somalia, however a recent exposè of ‘Hirsi ‘Ali’ uncovered that she was actually living in a middle-class area in Nairobi, Kenya with her rich family, and the so-called ‘forced marriage’ was actually an arranged marriage with a Somaalee man from Canada and they divorced normally, as her own brother and other (female) family members informed! Indeed, Professor Jytte Klausen, a just female Danish researcher of comparative politics at Brandeis University and author of The Islamic Challenge: Politics and Religion in Western Europe (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005) noted recently that: “She wasn’t forced into a marriage. She had an amicable relationship with her husband, as well as with the rest of her family. It was not true that she had to hide from her family for years.” She did not arrive from war-torn Somalia, but had rather spent substantial periods of time in Kenya (where she spent most of her life), Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and Germany!
Furthermore, her name ‘Ayaan Hirsi ‘Ali’ is false and is not her real name, rather her real name was something else!? She therefore fabricated her refugee story in order to seek asylum and residence in Europe, and then later get a passport, which she did get in 1997! This is the kind of lying individual that some people in the West were propping up as an ‘Islamic specialist’ and some kuffaar in England were even claiming that she should be supported as an ‘Islamic moderate’!!? Time Magazine even listed her as one of the most influential thinkers of 2005 CE!! ‘Ayaan Hirsi ‘Ali’ attended the American Jewish Committee centennial meeting in Washington!? (“A woman of valour” in The Jewish Chronicle, May 12 2006)
After the cartoons controversy, the fraud ‘Hirsi ‘Ali’ supported the printing of the cartoons. Crying on Dutch TV in disgrace, she admitted that she lied (Dutch: “Ik heb gelogen”), and that her birth date and name on her Dutch passport were all false, going against Holland’s immigration laws! At the same time, ‘Hirsi ‘Ali’ supported Holland’s anti-refugee policies!! She has said that she will join the American Enterprise Institute, one of the hardcore right-wing neocon think-tanks and spin-labs in the USA! So it looks as if she will get another nationality soon, as long as she panders enough to her pay-masters and fabricates more baatil against Islaam. In any case the US right wingers are against homosexuality, abortion and euthanasia, all the things that ‘Hirsi Ali’ calls to, so it looks as if she may not be there long!!
Her political party began to view her as more and more of a liability and one of her former colleagues from her political party declared that ‘Ayaan Hirsi ‘Ali’ “is not a Dutch national”!! So much for pledging allegiance to the enemies of Islaam and blindly following them in everything for name and fame, and so much for European right-wing politicians finding token black mascots to attack Muslims. Condemned by even some kuffaar journalists who branded her extreme, she is in tears, in disgrace, humiliated with no home (except in Kenya, but she despised Africa in any case and would not return there), her political reputation in tatters, her credibility called into question by her own people, stripped of her beloved nationality, ‘Ayaan Hirsi ‘Ali’ has been exposed by her own hands, indeed as the Qur’aan says,

“Such is the punishment (of this world). And the punishment of the Hereafter is greater, if only they knew.” [al-Qalam (68): 33]

Others who are also known for their use of the technique of claiming a past background of Islaam are the likes of Walid Shoebat, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq et al. all of whom claim a connection to Islaam yet as their backgrounds are unknown their claims to Islaam cannot be totally verified at all, they have only gained infamy in the West. And as we have seen with the case of ‘Ayaan Hirsi Ali’ honesty, integrity and reliability are not hallmarks of the so-called “former Muslims”! Furthermore, they are all distinctly characterized by crediting the West solely for “emancipating their minds”, along with providing them with citizenship out of their “third world” countries of origin. As a result, they are the most vehement in their opposition to Islaam along with their blind praise of all things European or American. Indeed, they are also known for sharing podiums with known Zionists and being propped up by their media, a damning indication of their aims if there ever was one! So for example, ‘Ayaan Hirsi Ali’ and Irshad Manji have exonerated any blame from Israel, yet have strongly criticized the Palestinians. Hirsi Ali retained her Dutch citizenship however after being supported by the neo-cons, Zionists and right-wing Dutch governmental sympathizers who all launched a worldwide campaign to defend her.
11. SERGE TRIFKOVIC, a Serbo-Croatian ‘academic’ who also compares Islaam to fascism and questions the massacres of Muslims in Bosnia!? He is the author of Sword of the Prophet (Boston: Regina Orthodox Press, 2002) and Defeating Jihad. He testified for the defense team of a Serb politician who was later found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia!!!?
12. MARK SILVERBURG, who is a US attorney and a listed author of the ‘Ariel Center for Policy Research’ in Israel. In his book The Quartermasters of Terror: Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Jihad (Wyndham Hill Press, 2005) he claims Saudi Arabia has “spent 87 billion dollars over the past twenty-five years to finance the propagation of Islamic extremism”!! In his introduction, he also makes the same blunder as Nina Shea, Robert Spencer and Bernard Lewis, that the “”…Muslim world is divided into two spheres, the House of Islam (Dar al-Islam) and the House of War (Dar al-Harb), which is non-Islamic. In his view, world peace, according to Islam, is achieved only when the world is subjected to Dar al-Islam. “The presumption”, says Lewis, “is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule.””
Silverburg also demonstrates that he has been influenced by the likes of Hishaam Kabbaanee as he states in the introduction, “In the estimated 80% of mosques that the Wahhabists control in America…” and Silverburg reached this figure based on al-Kabbaanee’s claim in 1998 that “80% of mosques in America are controlled by Wahhabis”!! Therefore, the solution for all of this according to Silverburg is for Islaam to be modernized and moderated, he claims, “in the same way that Christian and Jewish scholars have (over the centuries) moderated the more strident aspects of their scriptures and promoted those verses that spoke of the brotherhood of man, tolerance and understanding over those portions that speak of exclusivity” (!!!) Has he heard of Jack Chick, Franklin Graham, Rabbi Yitzak Ginsburg, Rabbi Meir Kahane and others? But then Silverburg states, in a clear demonstration ignorance of the topic: “To this day, no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden.” Even though Imaam ’Abdul’Azeez Bin Baaz (raheemahullaah) issued one in the 1990s!
13. JOE KAUFMAN, a Southern Florida hardcore Jewish extremist who promoted Rabbi Meir Kahane, who encouraged Baruch Goldstein the Israeli who killed 30 Palestinian Muslims while they were praying in a cold-blooded attack. On 1/1/2001, seven years after Goldstein’s terror act Kaufman praised the founder of the Kahane terror movement in a column titled “A Kahane Legacy Lost.” In the column Kaufman praised the violent terrorist Rabbi Meir Kahane and said: “It was perfectly understandable, if he were to have hated Arabs. Just like, during the Holocaust, it was perfectly understandable for a Jew to hate Germans…If the Kahanes’ memory serves us any purpose, it’s to show that trust (and peace) is ultimately between only ourselves.”
Immediately after the tragic acts of 9/11, Kaufman advocated the use of Nuclear Weapons to achieve “peace”!? In a commentary on 11/18/01 titled ‘Making Friends with the enemy…The Nuclear Way.’ Kaufman said: “Question: If the decimation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right thing to do, in response to Pearl Harbor, then why the heck are we saving our nuclear weapons now? And furthermore, if we’re not using them, why do we have the nukes in the first place? After all, there is no more Soviet Union to compete with. If the attacks are not a good enough reason to use them, then what are we holding on to them for?!!! Now, at this point, you may think of me as being no less than a madman, but hear me out, for I have a method to my madness.”
Kaufman has spewed hatred against Muslim youth events, like falsely accusing a Muslim youth retreat last year (January 16 2006) in the Tampa area, as a ‘Jihad camp.’ Kaufman circulated the wrong information encouraging other radicals to threaten both the youth and the venue owners. It turns out that Kaufamn lied and made up the stories which he pitched to local media. A St. Petersburg Times reporter discussed the issue in an article earlier this year titled “Are bloggers against hate, or feeding it?” source:
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/01/16/State/Are_bloggers_against_.shtml
A constitutional rights organization, Americans United, gave Kaufman the ‘Onion Award’ for “his consistent record of trashing everything Muslim with a broad brush of innuendo, association and excessive rhetoric.” Kaufman’s website had links to the extremist anti-Muslim websites of ‘Kahane.org’ and ‘HinduUnity.org’!! Yet when this was exposed in America, he removed them! The ‘Kahane.org’ website for example had links to ‘Kach’ an extremist Jewish Zionist terrorist group which has performed terror operations on Arabs and even according to the U.S. Department of State, ‘Kahane Chai’ and ‘Kach’ are known terrorist organizations banned in the United States! Kaufman writes for ‘Front Page Mag’, the same magazine that Stephen Schwartz also writes for!? He has been refuted in-depth by Jalal Abualrub here:
http://www.islamlife.com/readarticle.php?article_id=22
14. And last and least ‘JACK CHICK’ and his ‘publications’, not exactly the best example of Western toleration! As they were the first to utilize the method of cartoons and comics to get over their messages of hate after getting the idea for this in the 1950s from the communists in China according to his own admission. Along with its simplistic and futile publications of the likes of Robert Morey such
as Islamic Invasion and other discredited and feeble works.
15. WEBSITES who are responsible for such simplistic analysis, false reasoning and biased fanatical partisanship are the ‘Militant Islam Monitor’, ‘Jihad Watch’, ‘Front Page Mag’, ‘Campus Watch’, ‘Little Green Footballs’, ‘Western Resistance’ and others.
‘LGF’ started out as a web-design company which used to discuss cycling and computer programming but then after the events of 9/11 the site became a fanatically Islamophobic neo-con Zionist propaganda machine, demonstrating how events can affect the rationality. R.J. Smith in an article for the Los Angeles Magazine in February 2006 stated that the site “…believes all Muslims are terrorists until proven innocent…the site is a dysfunctional mix of beautiful photos Johnson takes on coastal bike rides and constitutionally protected hate speech.” Indeed, in 2005 the Jerusalem Post (on 2/2/06) gave the website the ‘Best Israel Advocacy Award’ for “promoting Israel and Zionism” and “presenting Israel’s side of the conflict”, enough said! There is a blog entitled ‘LGF Watch’ which refutes ‘LGF’.
As for the ‘Middle-East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)’ then it is a non-profit organisation established by Colonel Yigal Carmon, a twenty-two-year veteran of military intelligence in Israel with the goal of exploring the Middle East “through the region’s media.” MEMRI focuses on the following areas: Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Palestine, Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon and Turkey. Laila
Lalami has highlighted that there are three general observations that can be made about MEMRI’s work. One is that it consistently picks the most violent, hateful rubbish it can find, translates it and distributes it in e-mail newsletters to media and members of Congress in Washington. The second is that MEMRI does not translate comparable articles published in Israel, although the country is not only a part of the Middle East but an active party to some of its most main conflicts, indeed if not the main conflict! For instance, when the right-wing Israeli politician Effi Eitam referred to Israel’s Palestinian citizens as a “cancer,” MEMRI did not pick up this story. The third is that this organization is now the main source of media articles on the region of Islaam, a far greater and far more diverse whole than the individual countries it lists.
Most of the above name-check each other and compliment each others work. What is for sure is that it is odd how can fanatical Jewish Zionists, who describe Jesus, peace be upon him, as being a bastard, a false prophet who blasphemed against God and a magician, can be allies to fanatical Evangelicals who yearn for the second coming of Jesus wherein all Jews will be converted to evangelical Christianity!!? Furthermore, Justin Vaisse (Adjunct Professor at the Institut d’études Politiques de Paris) speaking at the Brookings Institution on September 13 2006 highlighted some of the causes of this scare-mongering:
“I arrived in the U.S. about 10 days ago, and going from Boston to Washington and other cities I toured the bookshops and I was looking for books on Islam in Europe. And the only titles I could find, the only books I could find, bore titles like While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, by Bruce Bauer; The West’s Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations, by Tony Blankley; Eurabia, The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye’or; or Menace in Europe: Why the Continent’s Crisis is America’s, Too, by Claire Berlinski. Again and again these books would show up in different bookshops, ours would not, but I think with some time it will, hopefully. And more generally, even more serious authors like Bernard Lewis or Neil Ferguson write things or give interviews speaking of the Islamization of Europe, the reverse colonization, the demographic time bomb that is threatening Europe, et cetera, with the suggestion that the sky is falling. In this literature that we call the alarmist school, you would generally find four inaccurate premises. The first one is about demography. Myth number one, if you want, is about demography. It is the idea that Muslims taken as a demographic bloc are gaining against the native population. The second myth is about sociology and culture. It is the idea that Muslims form “a distinct, cohesive, and bitter group” in the words of a 2005 Foreign Affairs article. Myth number three is about political attitudes. The alarmist view has it that Muslims seek to undermine the rule of law and the separation of church and state in order to create a society apart from the mainstream whether by imposing head scarves on young girls, campaigning for gender segregation in public institutions, defending domestic abuse as a cultural prerogative, or even supporting terrorism. The fourth and last myth is about domestic and foreign policy. Because they supposedly form a bloc, Muslims are supposed to influence more and more heavily the political process whether in domestic issues or, more importantly, in foreign policy issues. The idea is that France, Europe in general, but France more precisely, is kind of held hostage by its growing Muslim population and that it is tilting towards a more anti-Israeli and anti-American position.”
See full study by Justin Vaisse here, which refutes much of this scare-mongering and critically assess its claims:
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20060913islam.pdf
This mass hysteria, scare-mongering and propaganda against Islaam and Muslims in Europe has led to much discrimination and prejudice as indicated by a recent study (2006) conducted by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia entitled ‘Perceptions of Discrimination and Islamophobia: Voices From Members of Muslim Communities in the European Union’ which can be downloaded here:
http://eumc.europa.eu/eumc/material/pub/muslim/Perceptions_EN.pdf


1 This hadeeth is reported by Bukhaaree in Kitaab ul-Fitan, Taghyeer az-Zamaan hatta Tu’bad al-Awthaan, vol.13, p.76, hadeeth no.7116; Saheeh Muslim, Kitaab ul-Fitan, La Taqoom as-Saa’h hatta Ta’bud Daws Dha’l-Khalasah, vol.4, p.2230, hadeeth no.2906.
Both hadeeth are via Sa’eed Ibn Musayyib (raheemahullaah) from Abee Hurayrah (radi Allaahu ‘anhu).
2 Relayed by Muslim in Kitaab ul-Fitan wa Ashraat is-Sa’ah, vol.4, p.2230, hadeeth no.2907 via Abee Salamah from Aa’ishah (radi Allaahu anhumaa).
3 Reported by Ahmad in al-Musnad, vol.4, p.403; Ibn Abee Shaybah in al-Musannaf, vol.6, pp.70-71, hadeeth no.29547 in the chapter of Ta’oodh min ash-Shirk; Bukhaaree in Taareekh al-Kabeer. All are narrated via a man from Bani Kaahil from Abee Moosaa al-’Ash’aree, al-Haythamee said in al-Majma’, vol.10, p.223: “Narrated by Ahmad and at-Tabaraanee in al-Kabeer and al-Awsat and the narrators of Ahmad are sound except for Aboo ‘Alee and Wathaq ibn Hibbaan.” Also reported by Aboo Ya’la in his Musnad (vol.1, p.60-2, hadeeth no.54, 55, 56) from the hadeeth of Hudhayfah from Abee Bakr in a marfoo’ form and from the hadeeth of Mu’qal bin Yasaar in a marfoo’ form, mentioned by al-Haafidh in al-Mataalib (vol.3, p.183) and referred it to the Musnad of Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh and Aboo Bakr al-Marwazee narrated it in Musnad Abee Bakr (p.55); Bukhaaree in Adab al-Mufrad (p.105) from the narration of Mu’qal from Abee Bakr in a marfoo’ form, related by at-Tirmidhee (p.397). al-Haythamee said in al-Majma’ (vol.10, p.224): “Related by Aboo Ya’la from his Shaykh ‘Umar bin al-Husayn al-’Aqlee, who is matrook). Imaam al-Albaanee said in Saheeh al-Jaami’ (vol.1, p.694, hadeeth no.3731) that it is saheeh. Aboo Nu’aym also relayed it in al-Hilyah (vol.7, p.112) from the hadeeth Qays bin Haazim from Abee Bakr and Imaam al-Albaanee declared it saheeh in Saheeh al-Jaami’, vol.1, p.693, hadeeth no.3730.
4 Recorded in the Saheehs of Bukhaaree and Muslim