Islamophobes fabricate story 

Loonwatch.com, an excellent website keeping tabs on the Islamophobe industry, reported this week that the anti-Muslim blog FreePatriot.org published a story about a Muslim mob in Egypt that threw a 15-year-old Christian girl out a third-floor window. The FreePatriot story came with a photo of a woman falling out a window. Pretty enraging stuff, except that the story is completely made-up. The 2011 photo of a woman jumping from a fifth-floor window was shot in Shanghai.

The good news: The woman survived. The bad news: The 500,000-plus people who “like” FreePatriot on Facebook don’t care that the story is bogus. Of course, fabricating stories to demonize people is nothing new, and just last month, Loonwatch uncovered a false story about Egyptian jihadis using puppy bombs.

Bloggers praise false news about Angola

Speaking of false reports, did you catch the one about how Angola had banned Islam and was planning to raze mosques in the country? Anti-Muslim bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer both welcomed the false news. At The Daily Beast, Jacob Mchangama writes how the bloggers’ praise of Angola’s purported Islam ban contradicts their self-styled images as defenders of free speech.

Anti-Muslim writer Robert Spencer

Robert Spencer image courtesy Wikimedia Commons


This image is available for Web publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

Being mistaken for a Muslim can be dangerous

Some people get beaten up because they are Muslim, and others because they “look” Muslim. David Flores, a Christian, was wearing a skull cap when he was attacked by about 20 Hasidic Jewish men in Brooklyn who allegedly shouted: “Kill him, he’s a f—ing Muslim.” Flores shot at four of the men and was acquitted of attempted murder, according to the New York Post.

In Washington state, a Sikh taxi driver was left with permanent kidney damage and other injuries after he was attacked. His assailant, who was sentenced to 40 months in prison, used the most disgusting racist language the judge had ever heard, according to a local news report. Sikh’s being mistaken for Muslims and attacked is also not a new phenomenon.

A declaration against extremism

Despite the many times that Muslims have condemned terrorism and extremism, many people still accuse them of staying silent. So, here’s one more condemnation for the record: In his latest statement, Dr. Maher Hathout of the Muslim Public Affairs makes an extensive, reasoned case against terrorism, analyzes why extremism happens, and calls on people to fight against it. It’s a worthwhile read for anyone interested in what Muslims have to say about extremism.

Imam deported from England to go on trial in Jordan

A radical Muslim cleric deported in July from England to Jordan pleaded not guilty Tuesday to charges of conspiring to commit terrorism, and disputed the authority of the military court in Amman where he was being tried.

“I will not answer questions by this court because I do not recognize its jurisdiction,” Abu Qatada said during his hearing, according to a report from The Guardian.  According to Al Jazeera, in 1999, the Palestinian-born preacher was sentenced in absentia, to life in prison for allegedly conspiring to attack an American school in Amman and other targets. The next hearing date is December 24.

Nigerian government ignores sectarian strife

Human Rights Watch released a report Thursday accusing the Nigerian government of doing nothing to stop Muslim-Christian violence in the central states of Plateau and Kaduna that killed more than 3,000 people since 2010. The 146-page report, “Leave Everything to God,” also charged the government with failing to hold accountable those behind the violence. “Witnesses came forward to tell their stories, compiled lists of the dead, and identified the attackers, but in most cases nothing was done,” said Daniel Bekele, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “In the absence of justice, residents have resorted to violence to avenge their losses.”

Boko Haram militants

Boko Haram art courtesy AK Rockefeller via Flickr


This image is available for Web publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

More on Jefferson’s Quran

If you liked the little shout-out I gave in October to University of Texas Prof. Denise A. Spellberg and her new book, “Thomas Jefferson’s Quran: Islam and the Founders,” then you’ll likely enjoy the 45 minutes that the NPR program, On Point, devotes to to the third president. Joining Spellberg and host Tom Ashbrook was Congressman Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress who took the oath of office on a Jefferson’s Quran — not without some controversy.

If you want to know more about Islam and the Founding Fathers and have more than 45 minutes, you may want to enroll in “Religion and Culture: Muslims in America,” at Princeton University. The course, taught by Aly Kassam-Remtulla, associate director for academic planning, provides “an overview of the long history of Islam in the United States, dating back to the slave trade in the 17th century,” according to The Daily Princetonian. There’s just one problem: The course, which begins in the spring, is already oversubscribed.

Portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Matthew Harris Jouett.

Portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Matthew Harris Jouett. RNS photo courtesy Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

Policewomen with headscarves

In Edmonton, Canada, local police have approved a hijab, or headscarf, design for female police who are Muslim. “Regardless of race, culture, religion, or sexual orientation, it is important that anyone who has a calling to serve and protect Edmontonians, and passes the rigorous recruitment and police training standards, feel welcome and included in the EPS,” said Kevin Galvin, a police liaison with the city’s Muslim community. One question. How many Muslim policewomen are there in Edmonton?

Model wearing Edmonton Police Service uniform with hijab headscarf option. Photo courtesy Edmonton Police Service

Model wearing Edmonton Police Service uniform with hijab headscarf option. Photo courtesy Edmonton Police Service


This image is available for Web publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

 

 

30 Comments

  1. “Fabricating stories to demonize people is nothing new” — and you should know, Omar Sacirbey, since you’re a master at it yourself. Here, you are retailing the falsehoods of other smear artists, but are you too lazy to do any fact-checking? In reality, I never praised the supposed ban on Islam in Angola, and actually condemned it: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/11/angola-denies-it-banned-islam-destroyed-mosques.html

    You’re a disgrace to journalism.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

    • Shilling for your own website is pretty tasteless Bob. Disputing a fact easily gleaned from your own website is pretty stupid.

      “This is extraordinarily strange news, given that the world is racing in the other direction, to accommodate and appease Islam. ”

      “There is no way in Angola any more than there is anywhere else to distinguish jihadis in Angola from the peaceful Muslims among whom they move, organize and recruit, and clearly this measure is designed to stop that activity.”

      Yeah you weren’t praising the news. Riiight.

      Some other examples of your mendacity
      “The Ludicrous Lies of Robert Spencer”
      http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/37400_The_Ludicrous_Lies_of_Robert_Spencer

      When have you stopped lying?

    • Mr. Spencer, I just read your blog and completey missed the condemnation of the Angola ban. I did see your argument that the ban was “clearly” designed to stop terrorist activity. Perhaps that was not meant as praise, but it certainly was not condemnation.

      Peace,
      Qasim

  2. Islamophobes have to be some of the dumbest violent bigots out there. More often than not, they are in the news for assaulting or killing people who “looked Muslim” but were not. What kind of bigot is one who can’t even identify the object of their hate. I am sure the KKK and neo-nazis are laughing at them behind their backs.

    • Loon Watch, the anonymous source of Omar Sacribey’s piece is even worse. Basically, Omar is using a bigoted website with anti-semitic members to attack Robert Spencer. Pot calling kettle black.

    • Larry:

      What kind of bigot is one who can’t even identify the object of their hate. I am sure the KKK and neo-nazis are laughing at them behind their backs.

      You tell us, Larry. It was bigots in Bangladesh who attacked Hindu temples in response to Buddhist-Muslim sectarian fighting in Myanmar.

      • Was I talking about sectarian (and essentially political) violence elsewhere Rayznack? No. Why don’t I bring up the genocide in Bosnia and we can keep a tally. Nice try. But off topic.

        Back to my point, it was an Islamaphobe who shot up a Hindu temple in Wisconsin because he was too dumb to be able to distinguish between a mosque and a Hindu Temple. Hindus and Jews are constantly attacked by idiot Islamaphobes who can’t tell who is Muslim.

        Islamaphobes seem to be the masters of “missing their targets”. I can’t think of any other hate group so hapless. There is a special level of violent stupidity in this. What kind of bigot can’t identify the people they hate so virulently? A supremely stupid one. The KKK must be laughing at these guys as rank amateurs.

        If you feel that to fight violent bigotry, you have to be a violent bigot, don’t bother. It never works. It creates a violent idiot feedback loop. People like Robert Spencer are as much of the problem as the wannabe Osamas out there.

  3. Robert Spencer,

    The hypocrite is YOU.

    You did indeed welcome the possibility of the ban of Islam in Angola when news first broke of it, or at the very least did anything but condemn or even criticize it. From your own blog:

    “This is extraordinarily strange news, given that the world is racing in the other direction, to accommodate and appease Islam. It will be interesting to see, if these reports turn out to be accurate, how the mainstream media and Islamic supremacist groups will find a way to accuse the Angolans of “racism.” In any case, clearly this is a national security issue, with Islamic supremacists and jihadists wreaking havoc in Nigeria and spreading elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa. There is no way in Angola any more than there is anywhere else to distinguish jihadis in Angola from the peaceful Muslims among whom they move, organize and recruit, and clearly this measure is designed to stop that activity. However, censure from the UN and the world “human rights” community will probably soon compel Angola to change its stance, and allow the jihadis free rein.”

    Let’s analyze your statement here:

    1 – The alternative to a ban of Islam (“the other direction” as you put it) is to “to accommodate and appease Islam.” And since your entire blog rants and shills about the prevalence and evil of such accommodation and appeasement, one can easily conclude which of the two “options” in your binary world view you prefer.

    2 – You scoffed at the possibility – that if the ban turns out to be true – “how the mainstream media and Islamic supremacist groups will find a way to accuse the Angolans of “racism.”" You are clearly stating you would disagree with such opposition and in fact go further to mock those who would.

    3 – You justify the possibility of the ban to be “clearly this is a national security issue”

    4 – Incredibly, you argue that there is no way to distinguish between bad Muslims and good Muslims in Angola or anywhere in the world, essentially endorsing the ban as the final solution not only in Angola, but everywhere in the world: “There is no way in Angola any more than there is anywhere else to distinguish jihadis in Angola from the peaceful Muslims among whom they move, organize and recruit, and clearly this measure is designed to stop that activity.”

    5 – You put those who would seek to oppose the ban on human rights grounds in quotes (“human rights”) suggesting that you do NOT agree that this would be a human rights issue. You indicate that the consequence of reversing the ban on a human rights ground is: “the free reign of Jihadis.” Now, unless you are now changing your mind that “the free reign of Jihadis” is an undesirable thing, you are explicitly warning against the reversal of the ban.

    The full quote: “However, censure from the UN and the world “human rights” community will probably soon compel Angola to change its stance, and allow the jihadis free rein.”

    In conclusion, the claim by Omar Sacirbey is 100% true. Short of stripping naked and dancing in the streets of Manchester,

    You either have a painfully low IQ, are a shameless hypocrite, or suffer from severe amnesia when you come here to deride this fine journalist and accuse him of lying about your first response to the news of the ban when it is so clearly documented.

    Moreover, if you are ashamed of your own views, why hold them, let alone parade them so proudly, in the first place? Time for a psychiatric evaluation.

    Cordially,

    Richard

  4. Robert Spencer,

    The hypocrite is YOU.

    You did indeed welcome the possibility of the ban of Islam in Angola when news first broke of it, or at the very least did anything but condemn or even criticize it. From your own blog:

    “This is extraordinarily strange news, given that the world is racing in the other direction, to accommodate and appease Islam. It will be interesting to see, if these reports turn out to be accurate, how the mainstream media and Islamic supremacist groups will find a way to accuse the Angolans of “racism.” In any case, clearly this is a national security issue, with Islamic supremacists and jihadists wreaking havoc in Nigeria and spreading elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa. There is no way in Angola any more than there is anywhere else to distinguish jihadis in Angola from the peaceful Muslims among whom they move, organize and recruit, and clearly this measure is designed to stop that activity. However, censure from the UN and the world “human rights” community will probably soon compel Angola to change its stance, and allow the jihadis free rein.”

    Let’s analyze your statement here:

    1 – The alternative to a ban of Islam (“the other direction” as you put it) is to “to accommodate and appease Islam.” And since your entire blog rants and shills about the prevalence and evil of such accommodation and appeasement, one can easily conclude which of the two “options” in your binary world view you prefer.

    2 – You scoffed at the possibility – that if the ban turns out to be true – “how the mainstream media and Islamic supremacist groups will find a way to accuse the Angolans of “racism.”” You are clearly stating you would disagree with such opposition and in fact go further to mock those who would.

    3 – You justify the possibility of the ban to be “clearly this is a national security issue”

    4 – Incredibly, you argue that there is no way to distinguish between bad Muslims and good Muslims in Angola or anywhere in the world, essentially endorsing the ban as the final solution not only in Angola, but everywhere in the world: “There is no way in Angola any more than there is anywhere else to distinguish jihadis in Angola from the peaceful Muslims among whom they move, organize and recruit, and clearly this measure is designed to stop that activity.”

    5 – You put those who would seek to oppose the ban on human rights grounds in quotes (“human rights”) suggesting that you do NOT agree that this would be a human rights issue. You indicate that the consequence of reversing the ban on a human rights ground is: “the free reign of Jihadis.” Now, unless you are now changing your mind that “the free reign of Jihadis” is an undesirable thing, you are explicitly warning against the reversal of the ban.

    The full quote: “However, censure from the UN and the world “human rights” community will probably soon compel Angola to change its stance, and allow the jihadis free rein.”

    In conclusion, the claim by Omar Sacirbey is 100% true.

    You either have a painfully low IQ, are a shameless hypocrite, or suffer from severe amnesia when you come here to deride this fine journalist and accuse him of lying about your first response to the news of the ban when it is so clearly documented.

    Moreover, if you are ashamed of your own views, why hold them, let alone parade them so proudly, in the first place? Time for a psychiatric evaluation.

    Cordially,

    Richard

  5. Salams
    Making a point of designing a uniform hijab for policewomen is one way of rolling out the welcome mat and encouraging Muslim women to apply.
    Yay

  6. Wow, Spencer got owned. Spencer must feel smaller than a mosquito right now. Too bad, i guess when you’re full of @#$(* someone eventually exposes you for the fraud you are

  7. I have to agree with Robert Spencer.

    He may not have condemned the reports, but he assumed that if they were true it was in response to the jihad attacks in Africa.

    Richard is over analyzing and missing a very important point Robert Spencer is making.

    Assuming the story was true, and assuming the Angolans were doing what was reported for SOME reason, then assuming it was done in response to jihad in other parts of Africa is reasonable. That they did what they did, out of a concern for national security because of a perceived threat from Islam is how Robert Spencer was trying to understand the story.

    If, then, the United Nations used international pressure to the declare the Angolans racists, and force them to ignore the jihad threat, real, or imagined, then this would be typical of today’s hypocrisy.

    “You scoffed at the possibility – that if the ban turns out to be true – “how the mainstream media and Islamic supremacist groups will find a way to accuse the Angolans of “racism.”” You are clearly stating you would disagree with such opposition and in fact go further to mock those who would.” – Richard

    The joke is on you, Richard. Islam is not a race, that’s all.

    “Incredibly, you argue that there is no way to distinguish between bad Muslims and good Muslims in Angola or anywhere in the world”

    Are you denying this? How do you distinguish between bad, killer Muslims, the ones that kill in the name of Allah, and the ones that don’t?

    Richard goes on with this non sequitur ” . . . essentially endorsing the ban as the final solution not only in Angola, but everywhere in the world”.

    I don’t find him saying that. These are Richard’s words, not Spencer’s. Robert Spencer is saying that people, and even countries can not defend themselves against jihad without being called, racists, or Islamophobes, and so forth.

    “There is no way in Angola any more than there is anywhere else to distinguish jihadis in Angola from the peaceful Muslims among whom they move, organize and recruit, and clearly this measure is designed to stop that activity.””

    This is a statement of the problem; bad Muslims hide among the good ones. This is the truth, and Richard doesn’t like Robert Spencer telling this truth. Richard wants to pretend, and Robert Spencer is bursting his bubble.

    I also have to agree with Robert Spencer about Omar Sacirbey. Anyone who would praise the web site Loonwatch has a serious problem.

    For example, Sacirbey brings us, by way of Loonwatch, the story David Flores. This is not a story religious persecution, but a story about a community group arresting an exhibitionist.

    “Flores had nine prior arrests and had previously plead guilty to public lewdness.”
    http://matzav.com/outrage-among-jewish-community-after-shomrim-shooter-david-flores-acquitted-of-attempted-murder-charge

    David Flores wasn’t assaulted for being a Muslim, he was apprehended for masturbating in front of children.

    Robert Spencer is spot on about Sacirbey.

    Sac is a hack.

    For more about Loonwatch come to “Loonwatch is a Propaganda Hate Site” on Facebook.
    https://www.facebook.com/LoonwatchIsAPropagandaHateSite

    • Robert is a lying sack of crap. He denied that he was happy that Angola allegedly was banning Islam. It would have been a supremely stupid move as likely to incite more violence than it could ever be considered solving. He got caught lying using his own statements here.

      By declaring war on an entire religion like Robert Spencer does, he just feeds into the fundamentalist propaganda machine. He essentially is in agreement with the Al Queda in both the words and methods. Both of them want to incite violence based on sectarian hatred for their own gain. Both demonize the religion of the other and encourage attacks on religious liberties as being inconvenient to their little private wars.

      Lets face it, you, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and all the rest of the Islamaphobes are the best employees Al Queda ever had.

      • Larry,
        Did you read my comment from above? Robert Spencer isn’t lying about anything. You have nothing. Show me where he is lying. You can’t, you have absolutely nothing.

  8. Interestingly the OIC also picked up on the angola “ban”

    http://www.oic-oci.org/oicv2/topic/?t_id=8669&ref=3486&lan=en&x_key=angola

    The OIC is based in Saudi Arabia

    “the Angolan Government which stands in blatant contravention of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”

    Perhaps the OIC head honcho would like to mention those fundamental freedoms to the people who run the country where the OIC is based. But, of course, he won’t

  9. It is ironic that Omar uses anonymous Islamist blog Loon Watch with it’s anti-semitic agenda to attack Robert Spencer,

    http://loonwatchexposed.blogspot.com/2013/11/loon-watchs-ilsha-recommends-american.html

    • That isn’t the complete story you90176

      LoonWatch’s friend Farah who writes the blog Musings of a Muslim has had her blog and membership deleted from Internations. She claims that the CIA, M15, Israel and Obama planned and carried out the terror attacks on 9/11, Boston, British 7/7. to discredit Muslims.

      Farah and Ilisha do not realise that two of the most powerful countries in the world can easily take over every Muslim country, why would they be plotting terrorist acts in third world countries?

      Loon Watch’s Ilisha Recommends American Saudi Blogger Who Claims Netanyahu and Obama Orchestrated Terror Attacks to Blame Islam

      http://loonwatchexposed.blogspot.com/2013/11/loon-watchs-ilsha-recommends-american.html

  10. Omar Sacirbey

    Loon Watch use Robert Spencer as a source when it suits their anti-semitic agenda, see here:

    Sheikh Palazzi: I Did Not Convert to Hinduism. Did Loon Watch Create Fake Facebook Page to Orchestrate Smear Campaign Against Zionist Muslim Sheikh?
    http://loonwatchexposed.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/sheikh-palazzi-i-did-not-convert-to.html

    Also, in the url in my first comment above, Ilisha the Loon watch writer who is a loon herself, recommdened a Pakistani blogger who claims that Obama plotted the Boston bombings,

  11. Religion News said:

    ‘Loonwatch.com, an excellent website keeping tabs on the Islamophobe industry’

    Religion News referencing is a farce. Shame on Religion News for using a hate site like Loon Watch. Both Loon Watch and Spencerwatch.com are run by anonymous bloggers. A number of notorious neo nazi Jew hating anti Westerners write comments there anonymously.

    They are most certainly not an ‘excellent source’.

      • Larry, you are spot on which is why LoonWatch have zero credibility. One of the many lies they propagated is one which rested on a FaceBook page.

        Religion News has become an apologist for Islamists.

        Sheikh Palazzi: I Did Not Convert to Hinduism. Did Loon Watch Create Fake Facebook Page to Orchestrate Smear Campaign Against Zionist Muslim Sheikh?
        http://loonwatchexposed.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/sheikh-palazzi-i-did-not-convert-to.html

  12. As usual, Spencer whines on his blog for his minions to come out here and defend him and smear his detractors, namely the marvelous websites loonwatch, spencerwatch, etc. Loonwatch’s articles were used by our professor as part of our syllabus in my college in Canada. Shoot the messenger all you want, it is a unique and impressive voice of moderation against some really rancid hate that often goes unnoticed, using humor to great effect.

    • LouisX

      Which college was that? could you provide the name of your professor and the College. I cannot believe that a School or College would use an anonymous Islamist source.

      Was it a private Muslim college or a Canadian one?

    • For the very best coverage of Loonwatch come to “Loonwatch is a Propaganda Hate Site” on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/LoonwatchIsAPropagandaHateSite

      Not only do we explode their lies, we show you how to understand, and even anticipate this noxious, ridiculous website.

      Loonwatch is dead, come visit their burial ground at “Loonwatch is a Propaganda Hate” on Facebook.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.