This Saturday in New Hampshire, several leading Republican presidential candidates are scheduled to appear at a “National Security Action Summit,” hosted by the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a think tank led by notorious anti-Muslim conspiracist Frank Gaffney. Among the topics slated for discussion at the event are “shariah and the Global Jihad movement,” as well as border security and the “hollowing-out” of the U.S. military.
Among those listed on the event website as confirmed: Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina and George Pataki.
Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker are currently listed as “yet to confirm.”
Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy have a long and well-documented history of anti-Muslim conspiracy theories. In recent years, Gaffney has alleged that Muslims serving in the U.S. government are waging a “civilizational jihad” to undermine the country from within, famously accusing Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin of being a covert operative of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2004, Gaffney leveled similar accusations of sedition against former DHS official and Republican political operative Faisal Gill, an individual later revealed to have been subsequently targeted for intensive government surveillance, as per documents revealed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and reported by The Intercept.
Following Gaffney’s participation in controversial hearings on Muslim-American radicalization in 2011, Linda Sarsour of the National Network for Arab American Communities observed that “Inviting such pseudo-experts to articulate views about Muslim communities in New York is akin to inviting David Duke, or head of the KKK to discuss African-American affairs.”
Gaffney’s Muslim conspiracies have ventured into even more paranoid territory in recent years, with claims that the U.S. Missile Defence agency logo had been altered by the Obama administration, and now “appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic crescent and star with the Obama campaign logo.” Such unhinged allegations have now earned him a listing as anti-Muslim extremist by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Matt Duss, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, was critical of the GOP’s patronage of Gaffney. “It’s really troubling that, despite his ridiculous and bigoted conspiracy theories, Gaffney has remained a player in GOP politics, thanks in large part to his considerable fundraising power,” Duss told The Intercept.
Haroon Moghul, of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, said the GOP’s seeming embrace of Gaffney is a reflection of its inability to adapt to a demographically changing United States. “Is there any growing American demographic left the GOP hasn’t alienated at this point?” Moghul asked. “On the other hand, I can see why a party that can’t bring itself to disavow Donald Trump would continue to fawn over a flagrant bigot like Gaffney.”
Given Gaffney’s history, as well as the tenor of past Center for Security Policy events, it seems likely that the New Hampshire summit will feature ample scaremongering and incitement against Muslim-Americans. The appearance of so many leading Republican figures suggests they tolerate, if not embrace, those sentiments.
Photo: Sue Ogrocki/AP
Funniest Muslim Joke of the centuries. : – Executioner ‘Jihadi John’ flees ISIS fearing for his own head – report
All of these guys are Cspan punching bags,like those old bozos that used to pop back up when knocked down.Hydrogen filled,will someone please strike a match?
Gaffney’s eyes betray his evil soul.
The biggest challenges that Muslims have faced during their violent existence have been from themselves – their own brothers and cousins. Here is an example: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/world/asia/detainees-vanish-in-secretive-facilities-as-pakistan-fights-taliban.html
The only solution is to sanitize the whole of the Middle East with nuclear energy and start all over again. And this time led by someone who loves to appear in cartoons.
Now that Turkey has started their war on ISIS I am awaiting your reactions.
John Russell Houser’s home (or at least the one in which his estranged wife lives) flies a Confederate flag.
Where was Houser radicalized?
He wasn’t radicalized. He just wasn’t diagnosed and treated properly for his lunacy.
Nope. He had to get those ideas from somewhere, so where was he radicalized?
Ideas are everywhere, just floating around. You don’t have to go anywhere to pick them up. They enter your head all the time from all directions. What you retain within your skull is the main thing. And if the wiring itself is defective then there is every chance of a short circuit. This is what happened.
So, the Confederate flag flying in the yard, and his ranting on talk radio about the evils of Democrats and liberals, those ideas Came from Nowhere. Could have gotten all those notions living in Tibet. Huh.
John Russell Houser, a 59-year-old white male and Republican, last night shot up a theater in Lafayette, Louisiana. Early reports are that he was very “far-right” and was interested in white supremacy. Houser slaughtered several people, wounded many more.
Where was Houser radicalized?
Was he also an ‘anti-Muslim conspiracist?
If not, how the fuck is he related to this article?
It’s her shtick. Can’t really hold it against her, bless her BDS-themed black/white/red/green cotton socks.
Events that “Louise Cypher” attends: http://www.conelrad.com/greene/images/anti_communist_rally_1964_s.jpg
Wot?! The article is about terrorism.
Lou, where do you suppose Houser was radicalized?
He certainly was an anti-muslim conspiracist – almost all mad people are. Now you please mind your French and not leave crap behind here.
Well,as its probable he never left the USA,at least for any length of time,and he doesn’t fit the jihadi profile,it must be the the good ol’USA which radicalized,or made mad,John Russel Houser.(Did he call himself by 3 names,or is that a MSM slur on southerners?)It is a madhouse,is it not?Or a shining city on the hill?
How the world doesn’t bust out laughing at US?sheesh.
I’ve read he went by “Rusty.” But giving 3 names seems like a good idea, since there likely are lot of mere “John Housers,” and a bunch of people googling that name only could led to some unfortunate problems for other John Housers.
Too bad that the comments are so dominated by material that is peripheral to the central fact, which is that the republican party is a closed society. In such societies, a body of mythology arises, and that body of mythology evolves out of contact with reality. Lacking such contact, its evolution is unpredictable in every sense but one: it will never converge to, or become otherwise reconciled with, the truth. Indeed, the mantra of such a society is to chant the myths whenever confronted by ideas coming from the outside, so that they will be unheard by the members, and thus have no effect.
We saw this in action during the administration of GW Bush, who believed that if you want something to be true, all that is necessary is to wish it to be. If despite your wishing and praying it does not become true, then you must not have wished or prayed hard enough. In the present instance, the republicans and their fellow travelers wish to believe that Islam is responsible for all the world’s evil. True, there are evil people of the Muslim faith, but they are no more numerous by proportion than evil people of the Christian, Jewish, and Hindu faiths. Fortunately, the evil are balanced by the good, and vastly outnumbered by the in-between.
“…that the republican party is a closed society. In such societies, a body of mythology arises, and that body of mythology evolves out of contact with reality. Lacking such contact, its evolution is unpredictable in every sense but one: it will never converge to, or become otherwise reconciled with, the truth. Indeed, the mantra of such a society is to chant the myths whenever confronted by ideas coming from the outside, so that they will be unheard by the members, and thus have no effect.”
The exact same thing can be said of Democrats and leftists in general – and of any group with a common agenda – so your profound point is pointless…
Touched a nerve, have we?
Uh, no.
Just pointing out that no political group is open to the ideas, cares or concerns of their perceived opponents – even high-minded leftists… and the ‘we’.
Of course, some of us were raised by wingnuts who saw commies under every bush — people like “Louise Cypher.” We had been receptive to those ideas, but by becoming open to other views (often at a horrid librul college) and arguments, we came to understand how totally sick and depraved wingnuttism is.
This marvelous series of succinct, head-shot tweets utterly demolishes this “journalist”‘s waffle:
Hasan Hafidh ?@HasHafidh 35 minutes ago
Seems some ‘Muslim’ commentators are more concerned w/making excuses for extremists instead of standing up for Muslims suffering from them.
Hasan Hafidh ?@HasHafidh 32 minutes ago
It isn’t poverty that radicalises people – if that were the case no one from the Gulf would be going to join ISIS to start.
Hasan Hafidh ?@HasHafidh 24 minutes ago
People are radicalised from young, from elders in community, from the hate preachers invited to their mosques, the sectarian media outlets..
In the end, a person’s quest for searching for beauty or ugliness in something is a reflection of her or his own inner self.
There’re both in life.
“In Search for Beauty in Islam”, at http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/thecproj.html
Nah. Mr. Hafidh is (justifiably) outraged by Shia attacks on Sunni and Sunni privilege. His context is sectarian violence & strife.
Moreover, I’ve read no one here, including Maz Hussain, claim that poverty is the cause of radicalization. (Altho I think in France specifically it has something to do with it.) Indeed, they cite the same things Mr. Hafidh does.
But you either know all that, or don’t care.
According to a great Sufi saint hereabouts there are many types of poverties, not just financial. Just like the Muslim Religion, the States of Poverty themselves are not monolithic. Every Depravity is caused by the Poverty of Something. You can probably figure out what that Something is in individual cases.
Take the NSA. What they lack is the finesse of the Chinese hackers and a Proper Law to back them up. So that’s their states of poverty.
This article hits several notes for me, unfortunately they are in a different key.
1.) I am paranoid. So watching someone disparage my fellow paranoids is makes me feel…uneasy.
2.) I am a conspiracy theorist. Although I’m technically more of a Skeptic, because I’m probably not smart enough to be an actual Conspiracy Theorist.
It seems to me that Conspiracy Theorists are the only people paying attention.
Webster Tarpley is a Conspiracy Theorist. He can actually put forward a reasonable framework of what is happening and why. I suspect the Government and Media are lying to me and spying on me. I don’t really believe anything they say anymore.
I definitely think you and Tarpley are onto something.
Serial lies by serial producers of lies cannot be coincidental or accidental.
not to mention those explicit photographs of Frank Gaffney and Eric Schmidt having a sausage party including the fsck in the ascii action.
@Louise Cypher
Reading Mona’s hyper-reactions to your trash I am inclined to think that you feel strongly about what you write. I could even coerce myself to to read what you write – if only you were a bit decent and avoided my kind of crappy comments.
It’s an unfair question to ask a stranger, but did you have a very deprived upbringing? I tend to think that you are a fresh import from the jungles of Kenya or thereabouts, and traded freely among the wonderful bushmen tribes.
I have high regard for Mona, except that I cannot understand why she engages in unnecessary discourse with uncultured persons like us.
“Reading Mona’s hyper-reactions”
Irrelevant clown -Mona- sweats and shakes nervously as they talk bull about me. Has zero cred.
“did you have a very deprived upbringing?”
Nope. Through no fault of my own, I was forced to live in conditions of extreme luxury.
LooCFer (Louise Cypher) must be one desperately lonely loser. Spends all day trolling a left of center news site….i am trying to understand the desperate need for attention this person must have.
I wasn’t thinking of money … maybe I should have said “depraved upbringing” to be explicit.
“Louise Cypher” in 2015:
From “The Naked Communist” by former FBI agent Cleon Skousen, c. 1960
Losers such as -Mona- use me for publicity for themselves. They are strictly third rate.
The book on “Louise Cypher’s” bedstand: http://tagg.org/rants/commies/CommieConspir.jpg
Frank Gaffney’s Islamophobia takes him to totally insane places. Sayeth Gaffney about a logo at the U.S. Missile Defense Agency:
Problem is, the logo that has Gaffney so upset was designed during the administration of George W. Bush. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022505704.html
This has a lot to do with the forfeiture of a support system amongst churches that have – in their ignorant fear that the evil of the last days will take some sort of non-choice-allowing form (how/where/when/what you were born) – have misconstrued theology to aim their angst at muslims
who picked out the picture Murtaza? Have you finalized the tear gas yet? It was a peculiar situation and certainly beyond my scope of understanding at the time. Amazing what a housewife will ignore out of sheer humiliations and fear right? Your whole life washing away in one sweep of gas in your eyes. That’s why I flipped them off but didn’t say anything. Maybe flipping them off truly ended it for me I’m til this day still not sure.
I’m disappointed that the Intercept is willing to let the Southern Poverty Law Center determine who counts as “extremist” and therefore bad. I’m no fan of Frank Gaffney or the others who the SPLC criticizes. But the SPLC has a bad track record of urging law enforcement to profile people based on the nonviolent ideas these people hold, and the way the SPLC tosses around labels like “extremists” and “hate groups” isn’t trustworthy. Here’s more info.
The SPLC has a record of urging law enforcement to be on heightened alert for people who hold specific ideas, such as “sovereign citizen” views. The SPLC says that law enforcement should profile people who hold “sovereign citizen” views, even though individuals with these views usually aren’t violent. And the SPLC acknowledges that “sovereign citizens” typically aren’t violent: according to a page on the SPLC website about “sovereign citizens”, “their weapon of choice is paper”. Still, the SPLC has put together a profile of how law enforcement officers can recognize that someone may hold “sovereign citizen” beliefs, and the SPLC adds that “law enforcement officers can and should be on the alert for” individuals who fit this belief-based profile. In other words, the SPLC is saying that law enforcement should treat holding these beliefs as suspicious, even though the SPLC knows that people with these views typically prefer not to use violence.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/sovereign-citizen-kane
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall/tips-for-law-enforcement
The SPLC has a tendency to target right-wing, nativist groups more than centrist, left-wing, or foreign-allied ones. A page on their website lists 16 extremist ideologies they follow, all but one of which would be considered more or less right-wing. The only one of the 16 that might be considered left-wing is black separatism, and that one seems to be included because it shares some particular beliefs (such as opposing racial intermarriage) with some of the right-wing ideologies that the SPLC follows.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/black-separatist
This shows that the SPLC’s claim to specialize in tracking “extremists” doesn’t quite capture how they decide who to target: the SPLC focuses on lots of extremists of the right but hardly any of the extremists of the left. The SPLC likes to call the groups it disapproves of “hate groups”, but that doesn’t really reflect how it makes its decisions either. Lots of groups across the political spectrum (left, right, and center) hate their enemies, sometimes with a more passionate hate than many of the groups the SPLC profiles. So the SPLC isn’t really compiling a list of the groups that are extremist or inclined toward hate, and as I mentioned some of the groups the SPLC targets aren’t particularly violent either. Although SPLC uses labels like “extremists” and “hate groups” to suggest that the groups it follows are somehow worse than others, in practice the SPLC won’t label your group as extremist or a hate group if you don’t hold the particular kinds of views SPLC dislikes (even if your group’s views are extreme and encouraging hate). On the other hand, if your group does happen to hold the kinds of views SPLC dislikes most, then SPLC will be more more eager to label your group as “extremist” or a “hate group”, even if your group is pretty nonviolent and less extreme and hate-filled than a lot of groups SPLC doesn’t bother listing.
You may say: Well, even if SPLC does have a particular dislike of certain right-wing views, that’s fine because I dislike them too. I can sympathize with that, because I’m not fond of any of the groups that SPLC targets. But when you or I dislike views like Frank Gaffney’s, is it really right to dismiss them as “extremist” following SPLC’s lead? Actually, it’s very dangerous to use the term “extremist” as a way to dismiss a group. Those who first advocated for women voting were extremists at the time; an extremist idea is simply one that’s further than others from what the majority of people at the time happen to believe. The problem is that history shows the majority is often wrong, and often the idea that was considered extremist at the time is the one that later turns out to be right. Certainly the Intercept advocates for many ideas that are extremist by contemporary American standards. So if the Intercept goes around using the word “extremist” as a way to dismiss a group, that simply encourages the tendency of people to dismiss any ideas that sound extreme, and the more that tendency takes root the less people will be able to hear excellent new ideas like the Intercept’s.
In fact using the SPLC’s “extremist” label against a group is a bad idea in two ways. First, the SPLC isn’t a reliable guide to extremism and hate; being included in the SPLC’s listing is only weakly correlated with the level of hate and extremism a group shows, and some groups get these labels pinned on them by SPLC even though the groups don’t particularly deserve them. Second, dismissing ideas as extremist is basically nothing more than the fallacy of thinking that something is correct just because the majority agrees; it’s a recipe for closed-mindedness, and encouraging that way of thinking would stifle dissent. As the Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald suggested in one of his many excellent criticisms of the concept of “hate speech”, people are often confident enough of their own opinions to want to silence another person’s unpopular views, but in doing so they are bound to be suppressing the truth. If you look at even the most admirable person from the 1700s, he or she would certainly turn out to be mistaken about many things, and any political grouping at a given time will dismiss many ideas that later turn out to contain lots of truth. So I’m sure that among the people the SPLC portrays so harshly, even though many of them are bad, there are also some who are advocating unpopular truths that don’t come through accurately in the SPLC’s unflattering portraits. Using the SPLC’s listings to suggest that some group is bad is shoddy reporting, it’s just unintelligently relying on someone else’s prejudices and calling it journalism.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/02/free-speech-twitter-france
Agendas.like assholes,everyone seems to have them.
SPLC is supposed to help poor people with the law?Well,things are sure getting worse for poor people,when did this center start?At the start of our(I sure aint rich) decline?
Trust has been decimated by too many corrupt leaders.
The mural in “Louise Cypher’s” living room: http://www.writing.upenn.edu//~afilreis/50s/is-this-tomorrow.html
What are the underlying reasons for many Americans to feel so insecure and fearful even though America is such a strong and powerful country?
The single best answer to that question was elaborated upon in 1964 by Richard Hofstadter in a Harper’s article that is still assigned in universities: “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.”
The entire thing repays reading: http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/
He’s been a lousy governor for the most part, but I would want to mention Chris Christie as a GOP candidate who has been prepared to stand up to these loons.
His sin was appointing a Muslim as a judge in New Jersey, something for which the Gaffneyites have never forgiven him. Even though New Hampshire is a critical state for Christie, I’m glad to see he’s not going to this – although if he were going, it could have gotten interesting, his coming face to face with people he usually refers to as crazies.
The Gaffneyites?Gaffney couldn’t lead the tide out.They are neoconservative Zionists.
Lu See Fer:
It’s like mosquitos trying to subjugate an entire herd of elephants.
“Louise Cypher” 2015:
“The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen c. 1963
*chuckle*
Yeah, there wasn’t actually a real-life well-thought-out well-funded fifth-column-supported Communist attempt to subvert Western and other democracies. It was all in Joe McCarthy’s head :)
Ah, but of course. “Louise Cypher” is a McCarthyite.
“Ah, but of course. “Louise Cypher” is a McCarthyite.”
LOL. You dummy.
McCarthy thought he saw red,when it was really a matter of Zion,and blue and white.
What a maroon.
Ms Cypher is correct to laugh at that.
They must chortle at our naivety.
“The appearance of so many leading Republican figures suggests they tolerate, if not embrace, those sentiments.”
And yet Republican politicians and Saudi Arabia are very fond of each other.
How could that be? Maybe Republicans don’t know that Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country. Maybe they don’t know.
I remember reading how conservatives in the Middle East were worried about western culture influencing their kids. This might be some of the reason why their paid for Republican friends and reps online are very intent on making muslims feel unwelcome here. That’s what Saudi Arabia wants.
Naw, I think it’s just flat out bigotry. After all, the country’s “demographic” isn’t changing to become more Muslim anywhere near as fast as it’s changing to become more Buddhist, but the last time they demonized the Buddhists was the Gore campaign, and they really haven’t burned down a stupa in years now.
“Among the topics slated for discussion at the event are “shariah and the Global Jihad movement”
Well since this “journalist”‘s MO is repeated here – implying that a topic is somehow laughable or conspiratorial without at least in general terms presenting the other side of the argument, and “thinking” that babbling about people being “anti-Muslim” is somehow an argument in itself and requires no further discussion – let’s have some clarity here and some actual info, as far as the *very real* and *very murderous* global jihad movement – a movement that has resulted in the death of millions in the past century alone and which can’t be reasoned with and can’t be appeased, but will have to be mercilessly and utterly eradicated if we want liberty to survive – concerns America:
http://www.clarionproject.org/islamist-organizations
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Propaganda
Hi Louise Cypher,
Have you got any references on when people have tried to with this movement (shariah and the Global Jihad) to reason with it or appease it – I’ve not seen this, once, it’s then quite a jump to say some people have to be mercilessly and utterly eradicated if we want liberty to survive, and when I think about it this statement contains the belief that we have liberty to begin with, a statement which is held false by many many people.
You are very correct though that the journalist Mr Hussain has not done a very good job at presenting the numerous sides of the debate though, it does no good to ignore people’s legitimate and non-legitimate fears, if anything it’s people with non-legitimate fears who are in the worse position
“You are very correct though that the journalist Mr Hussain has not done a very good job at presenting the numerous sides of the debate though, it does no good to ignore people’s legitimate and non-legitimate fears”
You make a very good observation here, but you are working from a fundamentally wrong starting point: you think that this “journalist” is in the game of doing actual, honest, fact-based reporting.
He is not. He is a Muslim propagandist.
“when people have tried to with this movement (shariah and the Global Jihad) to reason with it or appease it”
You can’t be serious. Read anything Glenn Greenwald *ever* wrote and try to find *a single sentence* where he made the obvious point that Sharia Law and the imperialist Islamic global jihad trying to subjugate the entire non-Muslim world to it is not to be surrendered to.
” it’s then quite a jump to say some people have to be mercilessly and utterly eradicated if we want liberty to survive”
Maybe to you. To all rational, sensible people looking at what is going on, it is perfectly obvious that the chance to live in coexistence with Charlie Hebdo murderers or Garland, TX terrorists is precisely *zero*. They will have to be eradicated, and the ideology that they are basing their actions on will have to be dealt with severely.
If this was 1941, you would probably be posting that German Nazis Italian Fascists and Japanese Imperialists can be reasoned with and somehow pacified. That’s nonsense.
Can you be specific on this? Do you propose they or the ideology should be eradicated by nuking the Middle East or something to that effect?
In the same manner that German Nazism, Italian Fascism and Japanese Imperialism were eradicated as world-threatening ideologies, and actual German Nazis, Italian Fascists and Japanese Imperialists were either killed or captured, and their nations denazified as far as possible, and basically forced to become tolerant democracies at gunpoint after they unconditionally capitulated. Education will be the key battle here.
There are still adherents to all these ideologies, of course, and in the same manner, Islamofascism will never be completely gone. But it will not pose an existential threat to civilized life any longer.
I take it you believe democratization should be implemented in all Muslim countries, including the wealthy monarchies? If you think that’s ever gonna happen, you don’t understand the American empire.
Now, your analogy has a problem. In the cases you mention, we’re talking about eradication of a government and a short-lived ideology specifically tied to that regime. Dealing with religious beliefs that are over a thousand years old is a completely different matter. Now, if you limit it to “Islamofascism” (Islamic imperialism I take it), it’s not even clear that this is a widespread ideology that poses much of a danger outside the Middle East.
Indeed, what are the odds that, say, Brazil, would be overrun by Islamic fundamentalists? That’s just a paranoid delusion. That’s true of any non-Islamic country. The only non-Islamic countries that have a problem with Islamic terrorism, albeit a relatively minor problem, are the traditional imperial powers: The US, Britain, France, and maybe Russia.
“The only non-Islamic countries that have a problem with Islamic terrorism, albeit a relatively minor problem, are the traditional imperial powers: The US, Britain, France, and maybe Russia.”
Utter nonsense, *and you know it*.
My statement is essentially true. I missed Israel, but their geopolitical circumstance is not rocket science. From time to time, a non-imperial country might have a problem with international terrorism (say, Argentina), but that’s due to external disputes that are being carried out in their territory as an incidental matter.
International terrorism exists primarily as a result of international meddling. This is not an empty assertion, but actually something that’s been extensively studied.
“I missed Israel”
Nonsense. You missed Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Germany, Belgium, India, Italy, Croatia, Kenya, Tanzania, Nigeria, Niger, Bulgaria, Thailand, Philippines, Canada, Cameroon, Australia, Uganda etc etc.
Embarrassing really. As if it is *still* possible to seriously claim that imperialist and colonial history of Europe is the main cause of these murderous attacks – and not the imperialist and colonialist *history of Islam from the day it was invented*.
I didn’t say anything about European colonialism, although it probably does matter in terms of understanding the history of certain countries and regions.
Continuous meddling in the modern era is what really matters. Well before 9/11, the US was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Middle East. There were some instances of Islamic terrorism back then, but nothing like what we see happening today — something that’s the result of major destabilization that occurred first with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the more recent arming of militant groups in Syria. It’s only recently that concern about Islamic terrorism has been growing significantly in some Western countries. Is that because Islam started to flourish an ideology just recently for no reason whatsoever? I don’t think so. The causes are geopolitical, obviously. Are US military actions succeeding at reducing the threat of international terrorism? Clearly not, nor will they. Reducing the threat of terrorism doesn’t appear to be a priority of the US government, unless they are highly incompetent.
“My statement is essentially true.”
Anyone who can make this sort of laughably ludicrous self-assessment, and then – after being shown to be woefully wrong – posts a load of empty waffle while staying silent about nations in Africa and South America and Asia and Oceania suffering from Muslim terrorism, and about *self-professed* religious reasons for that terror – in Paris, in Copenhagen, in Garland, in attacks on innocents by Boko Haram just to mention the most well-known examples – is an insincere moron unworthy of further engagement.
Not the least of the problems with your Zionist fear-mongering and hatred of Islam is your tendency to magnify threats. In comparison to the number of people killed in everyday murders in the US, the number of terrorism victims is miniscule. One can only wonder what would happen to the murder rate here if as much money was spent on crime prevention as on antiterrorism, or if the money spent killing people in illegal wars and propping up other fascist regimes were spent promoting social justice at home. No, you just cannot see it, because it is not in your interest to do so.
Indeed!
See this:
“Obama Discusses The ‘Greatest Frustration’ Of His Presidency”
Excerpt (emphases mine):
“If you ask me where has been the one area where I feel that I’ve been most frustrated and most stymied, it is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on Earth in which, we do not have sufficient common-sense gun safety laws, even in the face of repeated mass killings,” Obama said. “If you look at the number of Americans killed since 9/11 by terrorism, it’s less than 100. If you look at the number that have been killed by gun violence, it’s in the tens of thousands.”
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-discusses-the-greatest-frustration-of-his-presidency_55b1607be4b0074ba5a3ec72?
You couldn’t even defend this right-wing conspiracist organization without citing a number of other right-wing conspiracist organizations which are closely associated with it. (Reference: https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/08/pdf/islamophobia.pdf)
Saying “MOOZLUMS BAD” as an argument is far inferior to pointing out the clear and far less ambiguous record of mass murder and hatred propagated by hawkish anti-Muslim American political figures over the past decade. Middling and pathetic comments by you.
” Saying “MOOZLUMS BAD” ”
^
Note how this “journalist” again tries to – with an inept, pathetic sleight of hand attempt – make the ludicrous suggestion that saying “Islam is bad” – which is the only rational, sane conclusion any thinking person can come to after investigating the facts of the matter – is the same thing as saying “MOOZLUMS BAD”.
That is of course sheer nonsense. Muslims are the first victims of this atrocious ideology, most of them indoctrinated into it with brainwashing since the day they were born.
“Middling and pathetic comments by you.”
*chuckle*
As if I could care any less about what a sneering, jihad-supporting, terror-appeasing activist-posing-as-a-journalist thinks. The only thing that matters here is to point out to people who accidentally stumble on this rag the sources of actual data about the fifth column currently trying to destroy America – and more broadly, West – from within.
Hi Murtaza Hussain
But do you understand why Louise feels this way – I would too in her position, so would you. The comments may be pathetic and middling but that is not to say she is (without speaking for Louise) speaking what to her is true, and who are you, me, or anyone else to say her truth is wrong.
By saying a person is just plainly wrong will normally just strengthen that position and do nothing to help. Louise has pointed out many examples of people self-identifying as Muslims committing many many crimes – you cannot discount these facts – but at the same time its obviously not all the facts.
” you cannot discount these facts ”
*chuckle*
These people’s *middle name* is “Fact Discounter”.
Oh yeah, “Shariah” and “Jihad”, the two most misunderstood and distorted terms (by some Muslims and non-Muslims alike) that are used for fear mongering.
Essentially, they’ll use these terms as they understand them and as some misguided Muslims use them, completely ignoring how the majority of traditional Muslims, especially many Sufis, interpret and apply them, and have been over the past several centuries.
The Sufis see the Shariah like the shell of an egg that provides a protective and conducive environment for the self to develop so that it reflects the higher qualities of peace, love, humility, forgiveness, justice, selflessness, generosity, respect, truthfulness, etc., while the term ‘Jihad’ is used for the striving that one does for this self development.
I’m not really sure what Louise Cipher believes, even less sure of who she wants to “eradicate” and why that would be any different than somebody else trying to eradicate her.
But contending that Shariah isn’t an actual system of real world law, and is only a shell on the egg of the self in the minds of everyone but extremists is pretty absurd. Shariah law exists side by side with secular law in numerous countries, it has courts, it has judges, it pronounces verdicts. Been that way for a long time now.
Please re-read my comments.
My first sentence was this: Oh yeah, “Shariah” and “Jihad”, the two most misunderstood and distorted terms (by some Muslims and non-Muslims alike) that are used for fear mongering. (I’ve boldfaced the word ‘Muslims’ here)
The reality is much, much larger, and more complex, than some people point out. There’s a fairly large section of the Shariah (which is not monolithic, by the way) that deals with spiritual practices and personal piety, which are not discussed.
I was also clear that the egg shell analogy is taken by the Sufis, who are usually not represented in the media when Islam is discussed.
In any case, Dr. Abou El Fadl’s “Reasoning with God” is a good starting point to see how Shariah is viewed by traditional Muslims and how the Salafi and the Wahhabi trends within Islam have distorted it.
The only caution about this book is that it doesn’t present the views of the Sufis, especially those who are also universalists.
Nevertheless, to speak in abstract complexities and spiritual practices and personal piety, and not mention that there really are Qazi courts, they really do pass judgment, there really are juridicial institutions that are public, and social and imposed on those who fall under their jurisdiction is pretty disingenuous. And they are not Salafi or Wahhabi. I refer you to the fact that in British India, the Muslim community asked the British to take over the administration of the Qazi courts (and they did) in the 1880s, specifically because they complained that they were being disrupted by the Wahhabis.
In numerous countries, Shariah is either one of, or the only system of law. Regardless of its personal components in scripture or belief, shariah, in one of its variants, exists as a real external system of law. And that isn’t just a pipe dream of radicals, nor is it a myth created by outsiders.
It holds jurisdiction over matters related to marriage in Muslim communities in India, for example, and Qazi courts exist up to the appellate level in Pakistan. There is shariah law presiding over some very public matters in Indonesia, in Malaysia, and in Muslim communities in Africa.
The “majority of Muslims” recognize it as a form of external law in those countries, they cannot do otherwise. In some of those countries there is a choice of legal systems for some things, but in India, for example, if you are married under shariah you can be divorced under shariah, but you cannot be married under secular law and divorced under shariah or vice versa.
My point isn’t to deny that shariah has the aspects you mentioned, but to contest your portrayal of those who believe shariah is an actual form of external law that can be imposed on people as somehow misguided. It is. Those who are not Muslims and live under IS for example, have no choice about paying the jizya. The jizya is an element of shariah whether imposed in the past by Shahenshah Jahangir, or whether imposed in the present by IS. The Pakistani Hudood ordinances are a form of imposition of shariah, and a particularly pernicious one.
Does that mean it isn’t used for fearmongering? No. It is. Does it mean that you can pretend to people that it’s just a rich complex of religious beliefs and not a form of law that can be and has been imposed before? Also completely false.
Points well taken. I don’t necessarily disagree with you.
My intention was not to write an exhaustive primer on Shariah with all its complexities, nuances, history, and how it’s currently being interpreted and applied in Muslim countries, in this space, which is why I referred you to that book by Dr. Abou El Fadl I mentioned in my previous post.
That said, the law is just an empty shell without an inner (spiritual) reality and purpose, even if it has to do with issues, such as marriage and divorce, and the treatment of religious minorities, etc.
There’s a lot of disgust among the Muslims over the way certain laws, like the hudoods, and those related to women and minorities are interpreted and instituted in some Muslim majority countries, like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
These Muslims’ views need to be part of the discussion too.
No one asked for an exhaustive primer. Just acknowledgement that shariah is also a legal system. That part of what outsiders think is true. That it is necessarily as it is presented by those Muslims you disagree with isn’t, and that it is some kind of alien invasion into Western lands as presented by paranoid people here isn’t either. But it really is a system of external law, whatever it’s inner purpose (although maybe they really are systems of external laws is a more proper way to phrase it).
I’m fine with any Muslim views being part of the discussion, too.
Resting, will reply tomorrow.
Sorry, due to illness I can’t engage in a long and detailed discussion.
Yes, Shariah is generally looked upon as a set of laws. However, these laws have inner, spiritual, reality and purpose, and are not fixed in time.
I suggest you download a sample of this book, “Reasoning with God: Reclaiming Shariah in the Modern Age”, by Dr. Abou El Fadl, from http://www.amazon.com/Reasoning-God-Reclaiming-Shariah-Modern-ebook/dp/B00P8Y4GHG/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2_kin?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437738817&sr=1-1&keywords=khaled+abou+el+fadl
Read this short article by him: http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/whatisshariah.html
And listen to these long-winded detailed discourses, at http://www.scholarofthehouse.org/shwavifrin3s.html
For a few insights into how the Sufis think, here are some books:
1. “Transformative Worship in Islam”, at http://www.zahrapublications.com/book-TransformativeWorshipInIslam.php#bookTitle
2. “Academy of Knowledge Course TWO: The Prophetic Way of Life”, at http://www.zahrapublications.com/book-ASKCourseTWO-ThePropheticWayOfLife.php#bookTitle
3. “The Inner Meanings of Worship in Islam”, at http://www.zahrapublications.com/book-TheInnerMeaningsOfWorshipInIslam.php#bookTitle
4. Look up Feisal Abdul Rauf’s writings on Shariah.
” to speak in abstract complexities and spiritual practices and personal piety”
This is *precisely* why Sufi Muslim’s posts are so sad – being at the same time very thoughtful, and utterly inconsequential, especially as he does obviously represent a nuanced, spiritual, peace-seeking strain within Islam.
He mistakenly thinks that if he is, for example, able to show that, say, an aspect of Sharia law or a verse from Quran *can be interpreted* in a non-head-chopping manner, that in and of itself somehow exculpates *Islam as such* from being responsible for Islamic State’s atrocities. Which is obviously ludicrous, since what is important in the real world is the fact that Islam *from its outset* was an imperialist, conquering, intolerant and supremacist ideology.
As I’ve stated numerous times, Islam is not monolithic. It has many versions. Some are evil to bad, most are benign to good, while some, like the many forms of Sufi Islam, are excellent.
And this is my observation and opinion.
When groups, like ISIL, commit atrocities in the name of Islam, we consider it their Islam, not ours; though we know how their actions violate the Quran.
And we have the right to define our inner convictions and practices.
Also, as I have stated numerous times, when someone says: “Islam says/does …”, in reality what they are saying is: “Islam — as we understand — says/does…”
I had thought that you knew me from The Guardian so I didn’t think I needed to repeat what I’ve stated above.
You see Islam in a certain way, we see it in another way. And our views need to be part of the discussion as much as your views. Otherwise, the picture is not complete and is distorted.
In nearly all the discussions on Islam I’ve seen and read, the Sufis are never represented.
And this is why I chose my screen name.
http://www.zahrapublications.com
ADDENDUM:
A book I recommend: “The Crisis of Islamic Civilization”, at http://www.aliallawi.com/pub_crisisIslamicCivilization.php
Islam, as much as Christendom, the Sangha, or the Wiccan circle are all responsible for the Islamic State’s atrocities in that we are all responsible for this planet and what we can do to make it a good place. But that’s about where it ends, Ms. Cipher (can I call you Ms. Cipher?). If there’s something that we can do to promote humanity and end atrocity and we know it, we should do it, and that’s what I think Sufi Muslim is trying to do here. I just asked him to acknowledge that the popular interpretation of shariah comes from someplace, I never said that what he’s trying to do isn’t a good thing.
May I remind you that you cannot find a faith among the major religions, nor atheism that has not had atrocity committed in its name? Please look up Bishop Arnaud D’Amalric before babbling on any more about religions that are imperialist, conquering, intolerant, and supremacist. Or check out this little feature length documentary of the slaughter of tens of thousands in the name of Buddhism by Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Your problem, Louise, is that you don’t get out much.
“Islam, as much as Christendom, the Sangha, or the Wiccan circle are all responsible for the Islamic State’s atrocities in that we are all responsible for this planet and what we can do to make it a good place. ”
LOL. This is the funniest, dumbest, most airheaded example of Kumbaya-singing-hands-holding-head-in-the-sand-hiding nonsense I have *ever* read on here, an empty platitude of almost Obamaesque proportions. Competition among the Interceptistas is exceptionally strong, so well done.
By the way, it’s “its inner purpose”, not “it’s” in a previous post of yours. Encountering atrocious grammar fails like that is maddening so please cease and desist with that, or at least be kind enough and in the future start your posts with a trigger warning.
“Encountering atrocious grammar fails like that is maddening so please cease and desist with that, …”
Comma after “maddening.”
Um, no, not if leaving it out is a stylistic device indicating the exasperated unstopped free flow of spoken word when one addresses the grammatically uncouth who don’t know their possessives from their contracted forms or morons who jump in convos trying to make a killing but end up looking like a smoldering corpse of a jihadi homicide bomber whose sense of timing left a lot to be desired.
You moron.
What’s laughable is your quoting not one, but TWO Islamaphobic misinformation sources to support your statements!
The Clarion Project (organization run by a notorious Islamaphobe) and WikiIslam.com are HARDLY reliable sources on facts about Islam.
“Islamaphobic ”
You know sweetie, only complete morons still think that shrieking “Islamophobia!” is a winning argument when the topic of murderous ideology of Islamofascism is debated.
Nobody sane cares these days – when we all can see this monstrous ideology in real-life bloody action every single day world-wide – that silly folks like this “journalist”, the moronic SPLC he quotes, or you are using this term.
But you are forgiven, logic-challenged as you are: being completely without any persuasive line of argumentation when you are faced with clear, undeniable facts, name-calling is all you got left.
Second time today.
Louise Cypher 2015:
Mitchell Palmer 1920:
“removed the menace of Bolshevism for good.”
*chuckle*
That is *exactly* what happened in 1989. This guy was sublimely prescient in 1920 – mere 3 years after the bloody Russian Communist revolution.
Too bad this monstrous ideology of Bolshevism managed to murder at least 100 million people before the sane part of the world decided it was enough. Let’s hope we act more decisively regarding this present menace of Islamofascism.
“Louise Cypher” 2015:
“The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen c. 1963
Love can conquer hatred.
And that’s the approach the Muslims need to take towards these people.
There’s a Quranic verse (I’m forgetting the chapter and the verse number) that enjoins people to treat their enemies in such a manner under certain circumstances that they become loving friends.
I believe it can be applied with the proper courtesies towards Frank Gaffney and these GOP candidates, though it’ll require strong spiritual discipline.
>”Love can conquer hatred.”
Absolutely… unfortunately, I’m not so sure it works on rabid raccoons, GOP candidates or the weak-minded?
*but it’s still worth a try Sufi :)
” I’m not so sure it works on rabid raccoons, GOP candidates or the weak-minded?”
Or Muslims. Here is the score just in the past couple of days:
2015.07.22 (Gombe, Nigeria) – Over forty people are blown to bits by Boko Haram bomb blasts at two different bus stations.
2015.07.22 (Maroua, Cameroon) – Two girls disguised as beggars blow themselves up in a crowded market. Thirteen innocents are killed in the suicide blasts.
2015.07.22 (Alamar, Afghanistan) – A Shahid suicide bomber self-detonates at a market, slaughtering nineteen bystanders.
2015.07.21 (Baghdad, Iraq) – A Fedayeen suicide bombing claims the lives of nineteen innocents at a busy clothing store.
2015.07.21 (Sanaa, Yemen) – Children are among the casualties when the Islamic State sets off a car bomb near a Shia mosque.
2015.07.20 (Damaturu, Nigeria) – A half-dozen people are turned to pulp by two suicide bombers.
thereligionofpeace.com
Hi Louise Cypher
You are completely correct to point out these crimes but you have to ask why, and why again, and why again until you realize the people doing this are not much different from you and me. Going back many decades the intervention by certain counties against many other counties has lead to this point. If you just take things in isolation and reply on some facts and not all facts a person’s thinking and conclusions will only add more fuel to the fire.
As Sufi Muslim pointed out, love and the myriad of things that come from that is basically the only way to defeat ‘terror’ otherwise you are bombing people until they understand and from your list above, the outcome is clear. Isn’t it funny how people people can be exposed to the same facts but reach such different conclusions.
” you have to ask why”
Here’s why:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad
” the intervention by certain counties against many other counties ”
How very true:
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6XFWUaCIAA_OE6.png
Hi Louise
Only looked at your last link, it does not help your argument, or does going back 1400 years really help lol or else its Mohammad Mosaddegh all over again.
“Only looked at your last link”
Typical.
The material you’ve referenced is laughable, and has clearly been prepared by people who are not well educated on these matters.
I could challenge you on that, but yours seems more like a satarical account than a serious one.
“laughable”
It is great to see that a Muslim bravely calls Quran verses, Muslim own historical writing about the so-called prophet, and the map of imperialist Arab Muslim conquests “laughable”.
Progress!
I’m sure you have a good laugh in front of your screen when the commenters here take you seriously and respond to you.
You’re very good at reading what others write and distorting it.
In any case, you should apply to write for a The Onion.
You’re another example of Islamaphobes being unable to differentiate those committing acts of terror and murder which AREN’T condoned but CONDEMNED by Islam and Islam, itself.
Not ONE of those cited tragedies had any connection with ANYTHING supported by Islam! Just because a group calls themselves “ISIS”, that does not make them Islamic! Based on their words and deeds, a better acronym for them is #PISIS (the “P” is for PSEUDO)!
Also, in NONE of those citations the word Islam stated.
And there YOU go….. Quoting from yet ANOTHER un-Islamic source (theso-calledreligionofpeace misdirection site). Bogus misinformation fabricated to deceive the ignorant.
“You’re another example of Islamaphobes ”
*chuckle*
“but CONDEMNED by Islam and Islam, itself”
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7Q9qQ8CQAAFEtT.jpg
“Not ONE of those cited tragedies had any connection with ANYTHING supported by Islam! ”
“Also, in NONE of those citations the word Islam stated.”
“ANOTHER un-Islamic source ”
” fabricated to deceive the ignorant.”
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7LiqShCUAAP2D-.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-JZR55IYAA9-ci.jpg
The first step needs to be taken by the Muslims, by diving into their rich heritage of those currents within Islam that see religion as love, and moving away from those that see it as a political movement whose objective is to establish God’s laws on earth.
It’s very important that the books such as these are widely read, discussed and applied in their daily lives:
1. “The Sufi Path of Love: The Spiritual Teachings of Rumi”, at http://www.amazon.com/Sufi-Path-Love-Spiritual-Spirituality/dp/0873957245/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437668378&sr=1-3&keywords=william+chittick
2. “Divine Love: Islamic Literature and the Path to God”, at http://www.amazon.com/Divine-Love-Islamic-Literature-Path/dp/0300185952/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437668378&sr=1-7&keywords=william+chittick
The rest will follow.
If love doesn’t conquer the hatred some have, then at least it’s been tried.
Hi Sufi Muslim
You are nearly completely correct except that we should not use labels in a divisive way, it’s the approach we should all take because people’s problems are not separate from ourselves – it’s more difficult though when certain people and groups benefit with money and power by denying things that are true. It’s the same when GG talks about ‘when we do it its good and when they do it its bad’ when there is no them and us, only we.
But now I think of it when you say ‘these people’ do you mean the so called terrorists or US supporting politicians?
My last sentence clarifies who I meant by “these people”: I believe it can be applied with the proper courtesies towards Frank Gaffney and these GOP candidates, though it’ll require strong spiritual discipline.
I’d add others like Pam Geller, Steven Emerson, Robert Spencer, and our own home grown Lu See Fer.
Thanks for clearing that up, if only the way the comments work was as clear for me lol
The guy’s a Pro-Israel Neocon Jew – what else is there to say?
Except this: Try to suggest that there really are Zionist ‘conspiracies’, and the left and their Zionist supporters will rain hellfire down on you…
How any of these people ever got elected to anything is beyond me. They are indeed a bunch of unhinged crackpots.
Birds of a feather in coo coo land.
“Birds of a feather in coo coo land.”
Cheers buddy, I have tried to describe The Intercept crowd in a memorable, billboard-ready manner but this succinct and accurate line of yours is a clear winner.
Says one of the birds.
Is that a stick of dynamite in your pants Ahmed, or are you just happy to see me?