Postcard USA: Open Season on Islam

Daily Times [Pakistan] ^ | January 5, 2003 | Khalid Hasan

[Mrs. Obelix]

The latest insult to Islam comes in the form of a new book - "Islam Unveiled" - by Robert Spencer which rejects the thesis that Islam is a religion of peace or that it has been hijacked by a minority of extremists. It is open season on Islam in America.

[Mrs. Obelix]

In today's news, peaceful Muslims blew up 20 in Tel Aviv and peaceful Muslims in Algeria continued a bloody weekend of killings that claimed at least 56 lives. BTW, The Koran DOES sanction wife-beating (Sura 4:34)and many Muslim leaders including the grand Sheik of Al-Azhar in Cairo (a top Islamic theologian)condone suicide bombings.

[clintonh8r]

It is open season on Islam in America.

Do I need some kind of permit?

[milestogo]

From the article....

The person of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), has been singled out for the most shameful calumny, regardless of the feelings of the nearly six million Muslims who live in America, a number larger than that of the most influential and by far the richest community in the country, the Jews.

[anobjectivist]

Yeah I saw that one too. Apparently the writer forgot about that little christian minority poking around in the dark.

[CARepubGal]

I can't recall the announcement opening the season. What is the bag limit and are tags required?

[Jhoffa_]

It is open season on Islam in America.

That is correct..

I have seen several of our own little FR christian jihadders calling for mass deportations and "hanging's from a street lamp" for the "crime" of being an American Muslim.

Oh, and don't bother to point out the unconstitutionality of such things or that we have laws to address bad behavior.

These great "conservative" thinkers simply don't care.

(So long as it's not their own ox being gored..)

[norraad]

None & no!

[Moonmad27]

If an article has the words "PBUH" after the name Mohammed or any other Arabic name, it's a sure signal to stop reading. This article is no exception to the rule.

[Jhoffa_]

What the hell is a "PBUH" exactly?

[goodnesswins]

Looking for the CHEESE.....anyone seen any cheese?

[Vigilanteman]

Might as well post the whole thing:

It is open season on Islam in America. Seldom has there been such a concentrated attack on the religion and its teachings which are denounced almost without respite through articles, website messages, discussion groups, radio and television programmes and books. There are few voices raised in its defence. Suffice it to say that it is far easier to get an attack on Islam published than anything in defence of it.

Powerful evangelists with close personal ties to President George Bush — one of them administered the oath of office to him in 2001 — have attacked Islam and its teachings. The person of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), has been singled out for the most shameful calumny, regardless of the feelings of the nearly six million Muslims who live in America, a number larger than that of the most influential and by far the richest community in the country, the Jews. The President took an embarrassingly long time before dissociating himself from the likes of the fire-breathing Islam haters who can best be described as the evangelist attack dogs of the conservative establishment that believes Bush is the best thing to have happened to America since George Washington.

The latest insult to Islam comes in the form of a new book — “Islam Unveiled” — by Robert Spencer which rejects the thesis that Islam is a religion of peace or that it has been hijacked by a minority of extremists. This book, claim the publishers, “dares to tell the truth and show you exactly why this religion is so easy to hijack” and what Islamic authorities really teach about the kind of barbarities committed on that fateful day in September 2001. He argues that there is no distinction between true and terrorist Islam as fanaticism and terrorism are rooted in the Quran and the core Islamic traditions. He holds that since violence is integral to Islam, Muslim “moderates” would never be able to convince the majority that it isn’t.

Spencer quotes selectively from the Quran to assert that while Jews and Christians do not accept violent passages in their holy books in a literal sense, Muslims do. He also questions that Islam gave rights to women as he unloads his own interpretation of the institution of polygamy and divorce laws. He also subjects the Holy Prophet’s person (PBUH) to blasphemous criticism. He denounces the human rights record of Islamic countries and maintains that secularism will be unable to overcome the hurdles it faces to secure a foothold in the Islamic world.

Spencer, who has written for a number of right-wing journals, argues that suicide bombings derive their inspiration and rationale from Islamic theology. He says wife beating is sanctioned by the Quran and under Islamic law rape is impossible to prove. He argues that the Saudi Wahabi or Salafi movement is not the originator of Islamic radicalism or terrorism. Jihad is endemic to Islam and will continue. He quotes a Muslim journalist as saying that Islamic countries today are “full of bigotry, fanaticism, hypocrisy and plain ignorance.”

Nor does Spencer acknowledge Islam’s great contribution to science, art and culture. He writes that they virtually died out in the Muslim world which is the root cause of modern Muslim resentment against the West. As for the Crusades, the western world has no need to apologise to the Muslim world, he maintains. He does not believe that there is such a thing as tolerance in an Islamic society. His theory is that the Muslims are carrying out a “demographic jihad” against the West by breeding in large numbers. In the end they will just take over western Europe in human waves.

And, as is to be expected in a book of this kind, Spencer in order to drive home the point that Islam is intolerant and, thus, unwilling to co-exist with other religions, quotes that arch detractor of Islam, V S Naipaul, who justified the demolition of the Babri Mosque. Our very own Lady Nadaan Nadira finds no mention. I suppose one should be grateful for small mercies!

Khalid Hasan is Daily Times’ US-based correspondent

Let's see, can anyone name:

1. The last time Christian militants burst into a Muslim hospital to gun down doctors donating their talents to save the poor?

2. Threw grenades into a Muslim worship service to kill women and children?

3. Rigged their children with explosives with a promise to go to heaven by killing themselves and as many Arabs as possible in a Damascus pizza parlor?

[Diana Rose]

PBUH = peace be unto him

[prophetic]

so since Americans & esp American Christians are being targeted worldwide by followers of the great "religion of Peace" (note the killing of the 3 Missionaries in Yemen recently) in their attempt to get "closer to god".

Then it should seem only good & fair that we 'help' them to accomplish their goals by execution via pig's fat coated bullets?

If they want to blow themselves up then why cant they go & do it somewhere else, like in an empty field???

[Tunehead54]

It is open season on Islam in America.

Make that "in the world". There's numerous reasons for this. Strange book revue. He brings out several points of the author and leaves them unrefuted, perhaps because they are unarguable. Quoting ...

---

He argues that there is no distinction between true and terrorist Islam as fanaticism and terrorism are rooted in the Quran and the core Islamic traditions. He holds that since violence is integral to Islam, Muslim ?moderates? would never be able to convince the majority that it isn?t.

Spencer quotes selectively from the Quran to assert that while Jews and Christians do not accept violent passages in their holy books in a literal sense, Muslims do.

Spencer, who has written for a number of right-wing journals, argues that suicide bombings derive their inspiration and rationale from Islamic theology.

He says wife beating is sanctioned by the Quran and under Islamic law rape is impossible to prove. He argues that the Saudi Wahabi or Salafi movement is not the originator of Islamic radicalism or terrorism. Jihad is endemic to Islam and will continue. He quotes a Muslim journalist as saying that Islamic countries today are ?full of bigotry, fanaticism, hypocrisy and plain ignorance.?

He does not believe that there is such a thing as tolerance in an Islamic society.

---

Anybody who wants to ... pick one of these and I can prove it in five minutes. Anyone?

[Dialup Llama]

>>It is open season on Islam in America.

>That is correct..

Cut the whining. The anti-islamic backlash amounts to nothing more than dirty looks and vauge feelings about what 'may' happen. How does this compare with the actuality of standing in a window, 1,000 feet above the ground, surrounded by a jet fuel fire, deciding whether to jump on not. There is no comparison. Grow up.

[CARepubGal]

I saw a great bumpersticker: tag # 0911 and it was for Moose Limb hunting. The big truck was in motion and I could not find out who made these but hopefully some FReeper can find out. I want one. It may look silly on a Civic but still.....

[Mrs. Obelix]

So you're contrasting empty words about hanging American Muslims with 3000 deaths at the World Trade Center, riots and more killing at the Miss World pageant in Nigeria, the bombing of a club in Bali, the riots over Jerry Falwell's comments, the murder of missionaries in Lebanon and Yemen, and hundreds of other similar incidents? And then you have the gall to say that it's open season on Islam in America? More accurate would be: Muslims have declared open season on non-Muslims.

[Jhoffa_]

Cut the whining.

I am not "whining"

I am pointing out the unconstitutionality and inherent immorality associated with mass deportations, vigilantism and other forms of religious tyrany.

Perhaps you should stop "whining" and trying to warp emotional rhetoric and populism into a logical argument.

[A Navy Vet]

Oh please. "open season" my a&&. The American populace has been EXTREMELY tolerant of mysogynistic, intolerant Islam to date. Quit yer whining and get out in front of the War on Terrorism (aka Islamic Fundamentalists). Denounce the Islamo-facists loudly, consistantly, in mass, and you'll experience the compassion and brotherhood that Americans are known for. Hide in your Mosques, whisper among yourselves, promote the victimhood position, and you'll further alienate. Your choice.

[Jhoffa_]

So you're contrasting empty words about hanging American Muslims with 3000 deaths at the World Trade Center...

If the people who made these statements would like to step up to the plate, apologize and admit they spoke in anger, and that these were just "empty words" then I will accept that at face value.

Till they do, I frankly have no reason to doubt that they meant exactly what they said.

Which makes their answer no better than the problem it's supposed to address, imo.

[grammymoon]

Muslims are responsible for murder and violence all over the world. They live it, advocate it and enjoy it.
I advocate they all be shipped the hell out of here.

You can not defend the reprehensible actions of muslims and their filthy, perverted so called "prophet" in any way.

Evil, filthy, backward, cowardly killers.
I hope they are wiped off the face of the earth. Does that bother you? Tough. 9/11 bothers me, a lot.

[browardchad]

He writes that they (Muslim contributions to art and science) virtually died out in the Muslim world which is the root cause of modern Muslim resentment against the West. As for the Crusades, the western world has no need to apologise to the Muslim world, he maintains. He does not believe that there is such a thing as tolerance in an Islamic society. His theory is that the Muslims are carrying out a “demographic jihad” against the West by breeding in large numbers. In the end they will just take over western Europe in human waves.

And...Spencer...drive(s) home the point that Islam is intolerant and, thus, unwilling to co-exist with other religions...

Excellent summation of the book (with the help of a little editing).

The criticism might be valid, if it weren't for people being hacked and blown to bits on a daily basis across the globe in the name of Islam.

[Howlin]

a number larger than that of the most influential and by far the richest community in the country, the Jews.

It's also a number that they cannot prove. It's more than likely a LOT less than that.

[Paul Ross]

[Jhoffa_]

Muslims are responsible for murder and violence all over the world. They live it, advocate it and enjoy it. I advocate they all be shipped the hell out of here.

And let me guess... you don't care a whit about the Bill of Rights may have to say about it, do you?

The fact of the matter is, if you can deport Americans for worshipping Islam today, you can deport Americans for worshipping Christ tomorrow.. and Jews the day after that.. and Conservatives after that.. and on and on..

We have laws to address bad behavior, that's what we're interested in, what they do in the name of "Allah" Not that they worship him.

Anything less is tyranny.

[Squantos]

Not in Texas.......:o)

Stay Safe ....poaching allowed !

[Howlin]

A most EXCELLENT post!

[Jhoffa_]

Muslims,kill em all and let allah sort them out.

You know any personally? How bout if you had a friend who was a muslim?

Would you join the lynch mob?

[Mrs. Obelix]

More from Robert Spencer. He seems to be really zeroing in on the dishonesty of these Muslim spokesmen. This is from National Review Online:

January 2, 2003, 10:35 a.m.
A Saudi New Year’s Resolution
Nice try, but not quite right.

By Robert Spencer

As a new year dawns it's time for Saudis to learn discipline, says the editor-in-chief of the Jeddah-based Arab News. He doesn't just mean cutting back on beer runs to Bahrain: "a part of the kind of discipline that is so necessary must be the conscious decision never to resort to violence as a way of solving our problems."

An admirable New Year's Resolution, to be sure. Yet the editor, Khaled Al-Maeena, isn't entirely clear about the intended recipient of his admonition to nonviolence. Is he speaking to Saudis who may be tempted to continue to indulge a taste for terrorism in 2003, or to the United States? As war with Iraq looms ever nearer, Al-Maeena has strong words only for the Saudis' great ally: "At present the superpower is behaving like the proverbial bull in a china shop. It is not yet breaking but it is certainly threatening, accusing and blackmailing. It is committing acts that would cause America's legendary Founding Fathers to turn in their graves if they knew."

America's greatest fault? "The demonization of Muslims."

It seems that "the evil done by a few Muslims has been expanded in the American media to include all Muslims." Islam has become a scapegoat: "America, it seems, has to have an enemy and in the absence of 'godless communism,' their war on terror is viewed by many as a 'war on Islam.'" Says Al-Maeena, "America — and every other country — should realize that we Muslims too oppose terror."

Have Americans realized anything but this? Al-Maeena, after all, is admonishing the nation whose president has gone to such lengths to affirm that Islam is a religion of peace that Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations remarked, "Even I get a little tired of that." Al-Maeena is taking to task a media establishment that has followed George W. Bush's line on this as they have on little else. Indicative of the general tenor of American media coverage of Islam and terrorism is the day that Pat Robertson declared that Islam was not actually peaceful; the Washington Post wondered editorially if he were trying to start a "pogrom."

Evidently that sort of thing is not enough. Al-Maeena sees a political cartoon about Islam and terrorism ("What would Muhammad drive?" A truck carrying a bomb.) to claim that the entire American media is dead-set against Islam: "The cartoons ridiculing our Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, are justified by officials and the media who say — predictably — the press is free. Well, the press should be free but if it is, where are the cartoons, articles and TV shows presenting Arab or Palestinian opinions and views?"

Where are they? On PBS. "Arab" and "Palestinian" are certainly not synonymous with "Muslim," but since in the rest of his article Al-Maeena complains about the media's unfair characterization not of those groups but of Islam, he might be pleased to know that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting produced during the Christmas season a full-length valentine to Islam, Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet. Nor was this PBS's only initiative in this field, and network officials have been quite forthright about undertaking these projects in order to "counter the negative image of Muslims."

What agency funded by the Saudi government is busy countering the negative image of Americans in Saudi Arabia? But leave that aside — Al-Maeena's quarry is even bigger than the U.S. government and media. "The ineffective and virtually impotent Arab PR programs," he informs us, "have themselves become objects of ridicule and serve to do no more than increase the existing sense of helplessness." Why has this happened? "The anti-Islamic hysteria and the defamation of Muslims and their leaders has been a well-planned, well-orchestrated effort. It has been carried out with consummate skill and finesse. . . . As we look back at the year, we see that the attacks upon us have taken on a new and sinister dimension."

Who is doing all this planning and orchestrating? You guessed it: "Libelous and poisonous, the attacks have been both created and circulated by a powerful Zionist-backed lobby and its close allies." Of course! The eternal bogeyman!

If Al-Maeena believes his own calls for "no self-indulgent pity, no claims that we are misunderstood and victimized,
no turning away from the truth," he should stop pointing his finger at shadowy Zionist conspiracies and look at evidence that lies closer at hand. He calls Americans to "realize that we Muslims too oppose terror," and suggests that to think otherwise is to "demonize" Muslims. But is it "demonization" simply to ask why so many terrorists are Muslims and justify their terror on Islamic grounds? Was it a Zionist who murdered three American missionaries in Yemen and then explained that he did it in order to "cleanse his religion and get closer to Allah"? Was it a Zionist who found inspiration in the Koran to explode a bomb in the Sari club in Bali? Or who torched churches and murdered bystanders in Nigeria in reaction to a perceived insult to the prophet Muhammad during the Miss World pageant?

Of course all Muslims don't condone or endorse these acts. But the unpleasant fact is that these and many other
terrorist acts were, according to those who perpetrated them, motivated by Islamic teachings and thought. In light
of all this, was the cartoonist against whom Al-Maeena fulminates really trying to defame the prophet of Islam, or
was he simply making a statement about the stated motivations of all too many terrorists?

If Al-Maeena really wants to stop the self-pity and face the truth, he needs to recognize that Muslims haven't
needed any outside help lately: they're doing a terrific job of demonizing Islam all by themselves. It isn't enough
anymore, if it ever was, to say that terrorist Muslims take Koranic exhortations to violence "out of context" and
that they aren't true Muslims. If that's really the case, then Al-Maeena and other antiterrorist Muslims, instead of
looking under rocks for Zionists, should direct their energies to refuting and discrediting the exegeses of the Koran and Hadith that terrorists use to justify their actions. If it's really time for self-discipline, it's time for moderate Muslims to start trying to win back the ground they have lost to radical Muslims within the Islamic world.

Al-Maeena says it himself: "The time has come for us to look more closely at ourselves, to look honestly and analytically and to admit whatever we see — which will in many cases be painful to us." Just so. He even hints that he may be aware of the true dimensions of the problem: "A vital part of the success of this process depends upon our boldness in speaking out and challenging those who present and advocate ideas dressed in traditional language but which in fact too often run contrary to the best Islamic ideals of justice, fair play and tolerance."

He said it even more clearly in an earlier column about September 11: The fact that those responsible for the attacks were allegedly our fellow Muslims and perhaps even our fellow Saudis should make us stop and ponder. We must ask ourselves for reasons. Who were these people? Why did they do what they did? What led them down that path? The first two questions are probably the easiest; it is the third which may take us into regions we do not want to visit and force us to ask unpopular questions which may give rise to even more unpopular answers. But this must be done — coolly, calmly and as unemotionally as possible. We must investigate and if, in the course of our investigation, we stumble upon things that are unpleasant or unpalatable, we must confront them as honestly and sincerely as we can and then act according to the principles and directions of our great religion, Islam.

It is precisely this capacity for self-criticism that has been glaringly absent from Islam's internal debate, both among American Muslims and those in the Islamic world. To take just one recent example: When asked about the fact that Muslim radicals make liberal use of the Koranic verse that calls Jews and Christians "apes and swine" and says that they are under the curse of Allah (Sura 5:60), Hussein Ibish of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee relied on American ignorance of Islam and simply denied that such a verse was actually in the Koran. Then he took a page from Al-Maeena's Zionist demonization clique and suggested that those who asked such questions were simply bigots.

At that moment Ibish had an opportunity to explain that verse in a way that would remove its noxious implications
and discredit the radicals who take it at face value. The fact that he chose instead to deny the existence of this
verse raises questions about his ultimate goal. Does he want to instill in Americans a positive image of Islam at any
cost — even at the expense of the truth?

In dealing with uncomfortable matters in this way he insults both Muslims and non-Muslims. By ignoring Koranic passages like Sura 5:60 and the book's many calls to violence, moderate Muslims only give non-Muslims reason to suspect their intentions and honesty.

The time for this kind of dishonesty is long past. Too much is at stake. Instead of spending time imagining Zionist
conspiracies and demonizing those who dare to ask Al-Maeena's "unpopular questions," let us hope that in this
new year Al-Maeena and other like-minded Muslims will take their own exhortations to honesty and searching
self-examination to heart.

— Robert Spencer is an adjunct fellow with the Free Congress Foundation and author of Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter Books).

[VOA]

"Islam Unveiled" - by Robert Spencer which rejects the thesis that Islam is a
religion of peace or that it has been hijacked by a minority of extremists.

Sounds like a good condensate of the book; I heard the author interviewed on
a couple of major talk radio shows here in ultra-tolerant Los Angeles.

Sounds like a well-researched book with an easily-defended, realistic theme.


It is open season on Islam in America.

Fortunately, the radical Islamics are just about as clueless about
the USA and our allied countries (well, the people in countries that are
sympathetic to the USA, no matter what their rulers think.)

The Islamikazis forgot that the sailors, soldiers and pilots that could fight back
at Pearl Harbor didn't waste time waiting for permission to fight back...

[Mrs. Obelix]

If you start seeing incidents like this happening, then you have a case. Until then, all you have is a paranoid fantasy.

[scooter2]

Do I need some kind of permit?

And where do I get one?

[Jhoffa_]

If you start seeing incidents like this happening, then you have a case. Until then, all you have is a paranoid fantasy.

Well that, basic morality and the United States Constitution.

I would say I am quite well defended while FR's tiny brained haters are left with just emotional drivel, populism and catch phrases.

[RWG]

Is there a limit?

[RWG]

I have seen several of our own little FR christian jihadders calling for mass deportations and "hanging's from a street lamp" for the "crime" of being an American Muslim...Treason is a crime.

[Paul Ross]

I S L A M, RELIGION OF PEACE-TM

[crystalk]

It is open season FOR Islam most everywhere else, open season on Jews for them in the Tel Aviv bus depot,

open season on moderate Muslims for them in Algeria,

and of course always open season on Christians for them throughout the World, with some 5 to 10 million Christians expected to perish again in 2003 at the hands of Muslims.

[nomorecameljocks]

I would not have a friend who was a Muslim just as I am not friendly with liberals.

[Jhoffa_]

Treason is a crime.

Yes, I suppose it is.

In which case the state bears the burden of proof.

[crystalk]

Where do they GET this stuff? There are only 2 million or fewer persons of Islamic family-origins in the USA, and fewer than a half million who still attend Mosque or other Islamic worship weekly.

Of those even, 35% are African Americans who are followers (of cults deriving from) of the late Elijah Muhammad-- not true Sunni or Shia Muslims.

Nearly all of the other 65% are foreign born.

[crystalk]

If we could put not just PBUH, but also Jelly, on him, a child could have a Muhammad sandwich.

[clintonh8r]

Exactly.

Open season FOR muslims = open season ON muslims...

[crystalk]

It is open season on Christian doctors in Yemen.

[Republic of Texas]

It is open season on Islam in America.

If only this were true. The world would be a safer place.

[Jhoffa_]

I was friends with a Muslim from Cincy, he was the plaza maintenance man.

He was an all around good guy, would not hurt a fly. Helpful, polite.. I figured him for a Christian till I unknowingly offered him a piece of our pizza while he was fasting.

I really think the broad brush has no place here, not domestically. When you are dealing with state sponsored terror abroad, sure.. you don't have any good options left to you. But domestically, for us to oppress an otherwise peaceful individual for their religious belief is just wrong.

It's also unconstitutional.

[Jhoffa_]

LOL!

[crystalk]

When did you ever denounce the killing on 9/11, or ever admit that even one of the Muslims' millions of killings of Christians every year, was even so much as unfortunate to the success of your evil, Satanic PR campaign?