by, Todd Starnes | FNC
A pair of would-be jihadists learned a very important lesson over the weekend – in America, we shoot back.
The men, believed to be radicalized roommates from Phoenix, tried to launch an attack on a gathering of freedom-lovers in of all places – the Lone Star State. It would turn out to be a most unfortunate decision.
‘..The cold hard reality is that we don’t know how many more radicalized Muslims might be living among us – waiting to wage jihad..’
It turned out those practicing their First Amendment rights were protected by those practicing their Second Amendment rights. Within a matter of moments – the jihadists were quickly dispatched to the Hereafter thanks to a straight-shooting traffic cop.
Authorities have yet to categorize it as a terrorist attack, but one thing is clear. Police thwarted what could have been an unprecedented massacre on American soil.
The intended target was a contest for cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, hosted by the American Freedom Defense Initiative. Among the speakers were AFDI president Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders, a Dutch lawmaker known for his criticism of radical Islam.
Now, you may not agree with Miss Geller’s tactics. Some might accuse her of poking a bear – and that may very well be true.
But Miss Geller does have Constitutional right to poke the bear. She does have a Constitutional right to free speech. And those who disagree with her have a Constitutional right to disagree.
But they do not have a constitutional right to gun down those who might say or write or draw something that disparages the Prophet Muhammad.
And we should be alarmed at the growing number of pundits and talking heads who are blaming Miss Geller for the attempted terrorist attack.
“Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a ‘Muhammad drawing contest,’” New York Times reporter Rukmini Callimachi tweeted.
“Freedom of speech does not extend to insulting the Messenger Muhammad (saw) & hence provoking the anger of ¼ of the world,” tweeted British political activist Anjem Choudary.
He went on to call Geller and Wilders and the American Freedom Defense Initiative “enemies of Islam and Muslims.”
Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich rightly called Choudary an “enemy to human kind.” Amen, sister.
The idea that Ms. Geller is somehow responsible for what happened is absurd.
“The gunmen are fighting against freedom of speech,” she told “Fox & Friends.” “The First Amendment protects all speech – not just ideas that we like – but most particularly political speech. Who would decide what is good and what is forbidden? The Islamic State? Muslim Brotherhood groups? This is the key issue of our age.”
Aside from a brief mention in a press gaggle, the White House has been curiously quiet about the attack. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called on the president to publicly condemn “radical Islam.”
“The truth of the matter is that even though President Obama will not admit it – Islam has a problem, and it is called radical Islam,” Jindal said in a statement. “And the proponents of radical Islam hate our First Amendment, they hate freedom of speech and they want to destroy it and us.”
Jindal also called on Muslim leaders to condemn the violence. He said it’s time for them to step up and “declare that perpetrators of such violence are the enemy, they are wrong, and they will not be rewarded in the afterlife.”
The cold hard reality is that we don’t know how many more radicalized Muslims might be living among us – waiting to wage jihad. Wilders sounded the alarm last week in Washington, D.C.
“I’m warning America,” he said. “Don’t think that what’s happening in Europe today, will not happen in America tomorrow – because it will.”
And it did.
– – –
by, J. Schuyler Montague | sharia unveiled
Can you say.. ‘Body Bag’ Bit*ches?
When looking at the picture above, I could not help but notice how closely those body bags resemble the ‘..body bags..’ that they force their women to wear every day…
Just an observation of irony.
Okay.. so let’s go to the scorecards, shall we…
And the survey says..
Karma can be a bit*ch, huh?
Muslim Terrorist Plot Included the Bombing of Police Officer Funerals
by, Jennifer Griffin | FNC
Two women suspected of being terrorist sympathizers were arrested Thursday for allegedly plotting to detonate pressure cooker bombs in New York.
An FBI spokesperson confirmed the arrests, but circumstances surrounding them or the alleged plot were not immediately clear. NYPD Deputy Commissioner John Miller said the arrests were part of a local and federal investigation.
“What I can confirm is that arrests were made by the JTTF and NYPD in a national security investigation earlier this morning in New York City,” he said.
The complaint, which identified the suspects as Noelle Velentzas, 28, and Asia Siddiqui, 31, said Velentzas idolized Usama Bin Laden, even keeping pictures and video of the Al Qaeda mastermind on her cell phone.
“The investigation has revealed that Velentzas espouses violent jihadist beliefs and has repeatedly expressed an interest in terrorist attacks committed within the United States,” the complaint stated.
Both women appeared at federal court in Brooklyn Thursday afternoon where a judge ruled that they will be held without bail. A preliminary hearing for the pair will be held on May 4. If convicted, both could face life sentences in prison.
U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Loretta Lynch said the pair studied how to carry out what could have been a deadly attack.
“We are committed to doing everything in our ability to detect, disrupt and deter attacks by homegrown violent extremists,” Lynch said. “As alleged, the defendants in this case carefully studied how to construct an explosive device to launch an attack on the homeland.”
The pair told an undercover agent they wanted to explode pressure cooker or propane tank bombs somewhere in the city.
“Siddiqui stated that Velentzas has been obsessed with pressure cookers since the Boston Marathon attacks in 2013,” the complaint stated.
ISIS Among Us:
The specific target of the alleged plotters was not clear. Local reports said that the public was never in any danger and that the pair was arrested without incident.
Last week, authorities in Chicago nabbed a National Guardsman and his cousin in a terror plot that included bombing an Illinois armory, an attack law enforcement said could have killed more than 100. The Heritage Foundation reported that the Chicago plot was the 64th case of a plot to commit terrorism on U.S. soil since 9/11.
by, Bob Price | Breitbart Texas | h/t Brandon Watkins III
GARLAND, Texas – The protest over the Honor the Prophet conference nearly turned violent as the two sides clashed over an incident in the parking lot. The confrontation occurred as a Muslim driver was laying on his car horn as he attempted to leave the parking lot and a protester placed a sign with an image of Muhammad under the front tire of the Muslim’s vehicle.
The incident occurred shortly after another heated verbal altercation occurred in the parking lot driveway that served as a demilitarized zone of sorts. The crowds from both sides had filled the driveway and the Muslim driver was attempting to exit the parking lot. He was blaring his horn in an inflammatory manner. One of the protesters placed a sign with the image of Muhammad under the front right tire of the vehicle and the driver stopped before running over the image.
The vehicle was quickly surrounded by people from both groups and heated words were exchanged. One of the Muslim-side protesters wearing a La Raza brown beret a Che Guevara shirt attempted to remove the sign from in front of the vehicle and a scuffle ensued. Calm leadership on both sides de-escalated the confrontation before it got out of hand.
Garland police moved in quickly and moved both groups back to their side of the driveway and peace was restored.
Other verbal confrontations occurred throughout the event. No physical confrontations occurred and the protest remained peaceful. No arrests are believed to have been made by police who were present in large numbers.
by, Victor Fiorillo | Philadelphia Magazine | h/t Creeping Sharia | h/t Robert Chidester
Bensalem has its fair share of churches and other houses of worship. The Bucks County township of 60,000 has Catholic churches, Protestant churches, synagogues, a Jehovah’s Witness Kingdom Hall, and a Buddhist Temple. And there are two Hindu temples under development. But if you’re a Bensalem Muslim, you’re out of luck, because Bensalem doesn’t have a mosque. Instead, local Muslims meet once a week for Friday prayers inside a rented fire hall.
The Bensalem Masjid, a religious organization with some 200 families in its congregation, wants to change that but says that Bensalem Township and its Zoning Hearing Board haven’t exactly rolled out the red carpet for its proposed mosque (rendering above) on the 3800 block of Hulmeville Road, which has several other houses of worship within a one-mile radius. And now the group has filed a lawsuit (below) against the township and the board in federal court.
The group has been looking for property for its mosque since 2008. And due to zoning regulations in Bensalem, you can’t just erect a mosque — or any other house of worship — wherever you want.
The Bensalem Masjid says that it tried to buy existing houses of worship, which would already be zoned correctly, but none were interested in selling. It put in bids on other properly zoned parcels, but those bids were rejected or went unanswered. Finally, the group found a 4.58-acre, three-parcel stretch of property on Hulmeville Road that would be perfect for its needs — big enough for a cafeteria, a school, and all of the other facilities they wanted to bring to the Muslims in the area — but the group of properties weren’t zoned for house-of-worship use. And so, the Bensalem Masjid went before the zoning board to try to get a variance.
In February, the board expressed certain concerns about the project, and so the group changed its physical plans, eliminating a proposed basement and cafeteria. Another hearing was held. And another. And another. In total, six hearings were held, making the process one of the longest — if not the longest zoning hearing process — in Bensalem’s history.
Board members questioned the Masjid about parking and traffic. One board member expressed concern that the mosque would bring in Muslims from New Jersey and nearby Philadelphia.
Community members were invited to air their concerns about the project. One suggested that unlike a church or synagogue, the mosque wouldn’t bring the same kind of benefit to the overall community that a synagogue or church would bring.
The fears of another community member who spoke were a little more clear:
…mosques have patterns and the pattern of mosques has been that when they — when the congregants outgrow the mosque, they spill out on to the streets. And what they do is they — they block — pull up blockades and they bring out their rugs, and they put them down on the street, and they do their prayers out on the streets. I have a video of this if you would like to see to back it up, in several cities around the world … What they do is they put up their barricades and they lay their carpets down on the street and they pray. And it takes them 45 minutes. It draws a lot of people, and it creates problems for the businesses on that street because they cannot do commerce because nobody can get in or out of their stores.
The Masjid brought in at least 10 expert witnesses to testify on its behalf — from a civil engineer and traffic experts to an Islamic theologian — but the board still said no. And the group contends that the same board granted variances to other nearby religious organizations similarly restricted by the zoning laws. The variance obtained in April to build a Hindu temple on the site of a restaurant was reportedly not met with significant objection.
So is this Islamophobia at work?
“We can’t see into their hearts, so we judge them by their conduct,” says Ryan Tack-Hooper, the Masjid’s attorney from the Philadelphia chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who suggests that the board’s concerns over traffic and parking were unfounded and that the board didn’t make an issue out of traffic and parking for others houses of worship in the area. “It’s very clear that they treated this case differently than they treated other faith centers. There’s definitely some prejudice at work here.”
In its lawsuit, the Masjid accuses Bensalem and the board of violating laws regarding religious land use, Pennsylvania’s Municipal Planning Code and Religious Freedom Protection Act, and the group’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The zoning board’s attorney could not be reached for comment, and an attorney representing the township did not immediately return a call seeking comment. One board member, realtor Joanne Redding, hung up on us when we tried to ask her about the mosque.
by, Sharona Schwartz | The Blaze
The Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim American Society are each registering their outrage over reportedly being designated terrorist organizations by the United Arab Emirates.
The two American groups were listed alongside the Islamic State group, Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood branches, as well as European Muslim groups in Italy, Germany, Sweden, Norway and Finland, Britain’s Cordoba Foundation and the Muslim Association of Britain. The full list, numbering 83 groups, was approved by the UAE cabinet Saturday and was posted by the official news agency WAM.
CAIR described its inclusion on the terrorism list as “shocking and bizarre” and called on the UAE government to remove them.
“There is absolutely no factual basis for the inclusion [of] CAIR and other American and European civil rights and advocacy groups on this list,” CAIR said in a statement Sunday.
“Like the rest of the mainstream institutions representing the American Muslim community, CAIR’s advocacy model is the antithesis of the narrative of violent extremists,” the group said. “We call on the United Arab Emirates cabinet to review this list and remove organizations such as CAIR, the Muslim American Society and other civil society organizations that peacefully promote civil and democratic rights and that oppose terrorism whenever it occurs, wherever it occurs and whoever carries it out.”
CAIR said it recently joined other Muslim-American leaders to release an open letter in Arabic “refuting the ideology of the terrorist group ISIS and urging its supporters to repent and ‘return to the religion of mercy.’”
The Muslim American Society said in its own statement that it was “shocked” to learn of its inclusion.
“The Muslim American Society is a religious community service organization that serves people in the United States. We have no dealings with the United Arab Emirates, and hence are perplexed by this news,” the group said. “Before proceeding any further, we would first like to verify the accuracy of the news reports and receive an official response from the United Arab Emirates regarding the reports. We would also like to seek the help of our government to address this issue.”
CAIR was named by federal prosecutors in 2007 along with about 300 others as an“unindicted co-conspirator” in a Hamas funding case connected with the Holy Land Foundation trial. Hamas has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government since 2007. BuzzFeed noted that a federal judge later ruled that the government should not have included CAIR as a co-conspirator list, and CAIR was never charged with any crime.
CAIR, an Islamic advocacy group, was one of the organizations that sponsored the first Muslim prayer service held at the Washington National Cathedral on Friday.
The Associated Press noted that the UAE’s decision to include the Muslim Brotherhood on its terrorist group list followed similar terrorism designations for the Muslim Brotherhood by Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
by, J. Schuyler Montague | sharia unveiled
An organization by the name of “Muslim Advocates” is working diligently with high ranking executives from Facebook, Twitter, Google/YouTube and many other social media giants to silence any criticism of Islam. Hiding their true agenda behind a cloak of ‘..freedom and justice..’ they are pushing hard to have “all” Facebook pages, websites and videos with any negative connotation towards Islam removed immediately.
This organization which touts itself as a voice of reason and moderation is nothing more than a facilitator of silence through subjugation. They are the “IslamoNazi Gestapo” in disguise. Muslim Advocates initiated a campaign entitled: “Click Here to End Hate” which essentially is a ‘How to Guide’ to shut-down any speech that they disagree with.
Here is a screenshot from their website which clearly reveals their underlying motivations:
They actually give a couple “alleged” examples of ‘..hate speech..’ they found online. I would not be at all surprised if Muslims wrote these themselves under alias accounts:
And speaking of ‘..freedom of speech..’ they actually have the audacity to quote in their campaign program:
‘..Given today’s widespread use of the internet, all Americans should remain actively engaged and vigilant to prevent “our” freedom of speech from being abused..’
Here is a screenshot of that section:
This is their idea of ‘..freedom of speech..’ Robbing us of our freedoms, while defending their own. As if ‘freedom’ is a zero-sum commodity in which they must steal our’s in order to acquire their’s.
But we all know..it’s not about hate, because there is no hate on our end.
Islam possesses a monopoly on hate.
With us, it’s all about “truth.”
And they can’t handle the truth, so they seek to hide it.
‘..I possess but two weapons, in my right hand a pen and in my left, a sword.
If you ever take my pen away..you leave me with only one weapon to choose..’
– j. schuyler montague
If you would like to read their campaign program in it’s entirety, please link here:
Bill would sanction the Muslim Brotherhood and all of its affiliate organizations
by, Adam Kredo | The Washington Free Beacon
Congress is moving to officially designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and impose sanctions on any person who provides the group and its affiliates with “material support,” according to a copy of the legislation obtained by theWashington Free Beacon.
The Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2014—sponsored by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.)—seeks to slap U.S. sanctions on the organization’s political center in Egypt as well as scores of affiliates operating across America and Europe, according to the bill.
The bill currently has seven cosponsors: Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), Trent Franks (R., Ariz.), Cynthia Lummis (R., Wyo.), Kevin Brady (R., Texas), Steve Southerland (R., Fla.), Louie Gohmert (R., Texas), and Doug LaMalfa (R., Calif.).
While the United States has designated individuals and certain affiliates of the Brotherhood in the past, this is the first time that Congress has moved to sanction the organization as a whole, including all of its member organizations.
The 19-page bill seeks to build a case against the group as one of the leading sponsors of terrorism and argues that the Brotherhood has long been a key player in orchestrating attacks across the globe via its proxies.
The legislation comes as Egyptian authorities continue to crack down on Muslim Brotherhood-backers that have wreaked havoc on Christians and other minorities since the downfall of former President Mohammed Morsi.
The bill would direct the U.S. government to level all “available sanctions” to any person in the United States “who knowingly provides material support or resources to the Muslim Brotherhood or its affiliates, associated groups, or agents.”
It also moves to block anyone affiliated with the Brotherhood from receiving a U.S. visa, which could complicate the White House’s diplomacy efforts on multiple fronts.
A senior member of the Brotherhood was hosted at the White House in February, and other representatives of the group have also gained entrance to the United States, though it remains unclear just how many due to limited documentation.
Additionally, the bill would force a complete shutdown of any Brotherhood affiliates located in the United States and permit the removal of “any alien who is a member or representative” of the group.
Much of the legislation focuses on building a case against the Brotherhood and detailing its many terrorist links.
While the organization remains headquartered in Egypt, where it has faced a violent crackdown from Egyptian authorities, the Brotherhood operates across the world.
“The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto remains to this day what it has been for decades: ‘’Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu-Akbar!’” the bill states, referring to primary documents from Brotherhood leaders.
Lawmakers argue that, at its core, Brotherhood continues to support and finance jihad and promote the spread of an extremist version of Islam across the globe.
Previous administrations have designated global elements of the Brotherhood as terrorists.
The terror group Hamas, for instance, which continues to fire rockets at Israeli civilians from its headquarters in the Gaza Strip, is a known wing of the Brotherhood and has operated with its support.
Former President George W. Bush designated in 2001 the Brotherhood Lajnat al-Daawa al-Islamiya (the Islamic Call Committee) in Kuwait as a terrorist organization.
The Brotherhood’s Lajnat al-Daawa al-Islamiya served as a financial conduit for terror mastermind Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. It also has funded terror groups in Chechnya and Libya.
The U.S. government also has designated Muslim Brotherhood leaders from Yemen and other countries.
The Brotherhood’s financial networks have been implicated in the funding of Chechen rebels and there is evidence that the group has established some fundraising channels in the United States.
Former FBI Director Robert Mueller told lawmakers in 2011 that classified intelligence indicates the Brotherhood has been operating in America.
‘‘I can say at the outset that elements of the Muslim Brotherhood both here and overseas have supported terrorism,” he said at the time.
Some have pointed to the case of the Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim charity shut down by the federal government for funneling money to Hamas, as firm evidence of the Brotherhood’s efforts to raise money in the United States for terrorists
Experts note that while the Brotherhood supports an extremist ideology it would be very difficult for the government to designate the group and then determine who exactly is a member.
“American terrorist designations should be applied narrowly, or else they will lose their credibility. While the bill correctly highlights the Brotherhood’s deep hostility towards the United States and its violent ideological underpinnings, the evidence suggesting that it’s currently engaged in organized terrorism is flimsy,” said Eric Trager, an Egypt expert and fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).
“Moreover, given the significant blow that the Brotherhood has experienced in the past thirteen months since [former President] Morsi’s fall, the Brotherhood is no longer a strategic threat, and focusing on it will distract policymakers attention from the far more significant threats that have emerged in Syria and Iraq, where actual jihadis now control territory,” Trager explained.
– – –
Egypt, Russia and Saudi Arabia have already designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization long ago.
Why do “you” think the US has not?
by, Sharia Watch
The head of the Charity Commission recently made a startling admission. Islamic charities, he said, were the “most deadly” problem the Commission faces. William Shawcross said it was “ludicrous” that people with convictions for terrorism were perfectly free to set up charities, and were not automatically disqualified.
He is right of course, but there are other areas worth examining concerning Islamists running charities. For example – the Islamic Sharia Council.
The Islamic Sharia Council has been described elsewhere on this site. It is the home of the largest network of sharia councils in Britain, and runs a de factofamily law court system. It has been caught red handed dishing out false and dangerous information to women seeking advice on violent marriages.
Among its leading figures are known jihadis and Islamists. Suhaib Hasan, for example, praises stoning and has expressed his desire for “jihad against the non-Muslims”.
To receive charity status, an organisation must show itself to be acting for the public benefit. It must also fall within the descriptions of ‘charitable purpose’ as defined in the Charities Act, and it is here we encounter our problem. One of the ‘charitable purposes’ available to an organisation that wishes to gain charity status is “the advancement of religion”, and therefore the advancement of Islam.
As a result, the Islamic Sharia Council can argue that in applying sharia laws and norms upon families in Britain, it is indeed advancing religion and as such is free to do so.
Another body identified on this site, which also enjoys charity status by virtue of the fact that it advances religion, is Green Lane Mosque. You can read a description of our concerns regarding Green Lane Mosque here, but it is fair to say that many of the messages which have been broadcast in that mosque, are anything but charitable. Extremist preachers have been frequent; as has incitement to violence against women.
A further registered charity of concern to Sharia Watch is the East London Mosque. This is a mosque which also stands accused of hosting extremist orators and links to the Islamist Islamic Forum of Europe have been frequently shown.
The jihadism preached in British mosques and other institutions is not however what Mr Shawcross was referring to. His concerns centred around charities “sending cash to extremist groups in Syria” and no doubt elsewhere. Allegations of Islamic charities in Britain sending money to Hamas for example have been on-going for several years. Hamas, let us remind ourselves, believes in sharia law, the subjugation of women, and the killing of Jews. Indeed, just last week, it was revealed in the Spectator that a children’s show on Hamas TV had encouraged children to “kill all Jews”. Sending money to Hamas is therefore deeply problematic (for those who don’t believe in killing all Jews at least).
Back in 2006, a Panorama investigation alleged that Interpal, a charity dedicated to providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinians, was funding groups that endorsed terrorism in the Middle East. Although the Charity Commission reported at the time that it could not confirm that Interpal had issued funds to Hamas or other terrorist groups, it would not give the charity a “clean bill of health”.
In a recent article, Michael Curtis wrote:
Lloyds Bank’s attitude [regarding Interpal] was clear-cut. It decided in 2009 that it would not provide services for Interpal which had an account with the Islamic Bank of Britain.
The [Charity] Commission might have reached a similar conclusion if it had considered the activities of two individuals in Britain. Zaid Yemeni (Zaid Hassan), the representative of Interpal in Birmingham, who has met with a Hamas leader in Gaza who called on God to annihilate Jews and not leave any one of them alive.
Ibrahm Dar (Abu Hana), the Bradford representative of Interpal, is an open admirer of Anwar Al-Awlaki, a major al-Qaeda leader whose main ambition is blow up U.S. planes.
William Shawcross has said that the law needs to change and yes, that would be welcome. Maybe that change needs to be that every group which holds religion as its banner is not automatically deemed to be doing good; it is time to look instead at the individuals involved, and exactly what ideas and causes they are trying to advance.
by, Deborah Weiss | Frontpage Magazine
Amidst a barrage of controversy and criticism, the 9/11 museum officials stand firm in their decision to air a documentary on Al-Qaeda without censorship of Islam-related language.
The 911 Museum will open to the public on May 21, 2014, with a preview period for 9/11 families and survivors from May 15, 2014 to May 20, 2014.
Included is a 7-minute documentary titled, “[T]he Rise of Al-Qaeda.” It shows footage of Al-Qaeda’s journey over the prior several years on the way to 9/11, from its training camps to a series of terrorist attacks. The film will be adjacent to a room displaying photos of the 9/11 hijackers.
The film portrays the 9/11 hijackers as “Islamists” who viewed their mission as a “deadly jihad.” After all, in the words of the hijackers: “[M]any thanks to Allah for his kind gesture and choosing us to perform the act of jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims.” So, it was the hijackers themselves that believed they were on a jihadi mission for the cause of Islam.
The film has been thoroughly vetted and its accuracy is not in dispute. But an advisory panel of interfaith clergy who previewed the film is complaining about the use of the words “Islamist” and “jihad,” insisting that the jihadists should be shown in a greater “context” that portrays most Muslims as peaceful.
Reverend Chloe Breyer (Justice Breyer’s daughter), who preaches at Saint Philips Church in Harlem, wants the video to show Islam as a peace-loving religion where only a few outliers like the 9/11 hijackers are violent. She believes that the word “jihad” is an Islamic struggle to do good and that the film in its current form may justify bigotry or violence unless accompanied by a disclaimer.
Sheikh Mostafa Elazabawy, the only Imam on the advisory panel, made a splash when he quit the panel in response to the film, stating that “unsophisticated visitors who don’t understand the difference between Al-Qaeda and Muslims may come away with a prejudiced view of Islam, leading toward antagonism and even confrontation toward Muslim believers near the site.” He went on to say that “the screening of the film in its present state would greatly offend our local Muslim believers as well as any foreign Muslim visitor to the museum.”
Akbar Ahmed, Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, protested that most museum visitors will assume that the language refers to all Muslims. He argues that one shouldn’t associate the terrorists with their religion because doing so implicates 1.5 billion Muslims by association.
John Esposito, an apologist for Islam at the Saudi-funded Prince Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, generally prefers the phrase “Muslim terrorism” to “Islamic terrorism” in order to dissociate the motivating ideology from the terrorist behavior, and instead give the impression that the terrorist conduct is just coincidently committed by Muslims.
Others want the museum to go out of its way to show Muslims mourning over the 9/11 attacks to “balance out” images of Islam. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesperson for CAIR, a group which holds itself out as a Muslim civil rights organization but which in reality has many terrorist ties of its own, insisted that the film will reinforce “stereotypes” of Muslims as terrorists. He emphasized: “it’s very important how Islam is portrayed.”
But the film is not about Islam. The purpose of the museum is to educate the public on the events of 9/11, including who committed it and what their motivation was. The focus should be on the atrocity that murdered almost 3000 people in cold blood, not a PC version of feel-good Islam.
Joseph Daniels, the museum’s Executive Director, said that museum officials “stand by the scholarship that underlies the creation of this video.” NBC News Anchor, Brian Williams, who narrates the film explained, “[w]e have a heavy responsibility to be true to the facts, to be objective.” He asserted that the film in no way smears a whole religion, but instead talks about Al-Qaeda, a terrorist group. And, the film clearly acknowledges that Muslims were among the 9/11 victims, mourners, and recovery workers.
So the issue is how the terrorists are characterized and whether the public can discern the difference between Al-Qaeda and those who identify themselves as Muslim but are peaceful and law-abiding.
First, it is a fact that Al-Qaeda’s interpretation of Islam motivated the 9/11 attacks. To say that acknowledging Al-Qaeda’s motivational ideology indicts 1.5 billion Muslims is to say that all 1.5 billion Muslims agree with Al-Qaeda’s interpretation of Islam. If they do, they should be indicted. If they don’t, they shouldn’t be offended because the statements don’t apply to them.
Second, it’s unlikely that the Imam on the advisory panel speaks for all local and foreign Muslims, whom he claims to know will all be offended. If all Muslims should be painted with this broad brush, then the offense is deserved. If they are not a monolith, they shouldn’t be offended. On the contrary, they should be insulted that some unknown Imam thinks they can’t handle the truth.
Third, to claim that 9/11 or any other Islamic terrorist attack was just terrorism that incidentally was committed by Muslims is just a lie. It is the terrorists, not the reporters, who assert that they are motivated by their faith. Those who disagree with the terrorists’ interpretation of their faith should take it up with the terrorists, not those observing and reporting the facts. The same goes for terrorists who are members of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Boko Haram, Hezbollah and others.
Fourth, CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror financing trial in the history of the United States and has many terrorism ties. It is on a mission to stamp out all criticism of anything Islam-related, even if it’s true. Indeed, there’s nary a terrorist that CAIR doesn’t defend. Asserting that the 9/11 hijackers were Islamic terrorists is factual reporting, not “stereotyping.” But CAIR wants the public to believe that anybody except for Muslims can be terrorists. Besides, CAIR has no credibility and should not be given legitimacy by accommodating its gripes.
Fifth, the film is not a theological documentary about Islam; it’s about the events of 9/11. The documentary needn’t endorse or oppose Islam, nor evaluate the theological accuracy of the hijackers’ beliefs. It merely reports what their beliefs were; how the hijackers viewed themselves.
Sixth, it is not the museum’s job to soothe the feelings of hypersensitive Muslims. The museum should not go out of its way to portray a disproportionate number of Muslim mourners or recovery workers to “balance” things out.
Seventh, it’s ludicrous to believe that the general public is so stupid that it can’t distinguish between Al-Qaeda members and law-abiding Muslims. There is no reason to believe that learning about Al-Qaeda will lead the general citizenry to become bigots.
But even if it did, it is a falsity to claim that this bigotry would necessarily lead to actual violence. There is no evidence whatsoever that so-called anti-Islam sentiment leads to violence. This argument is disingenuously used to stifle criticism of Islam and shut down the debate. On the contrary, it is primarily in the Muslim world where offense leads to violence. It is “blasphemy” or insults to Islam that Muslims use to justify their violence, blaming the victims and evading personal responsibility. But in the West, one can have an emotion, even hatred, without acting on it. When someone does act violently, it’s illegal. So, there is no basis to conclude that Islam-hating infidels will assault and batter Muslims at the 9/11 memorial site, which will also be heavily policed.
Most importantly, it’s critical that the motivation of the hijackers be accurately conveyed. Their ideology must not be whitewashed, for fear of deleting history altogether, depriving future generations of an education regarding the largest terrorist attack on US soil, and increasing the likelihood that history will repeat itself.
Some 9/11 families and survivors believe that the truth should take priority over “sensitivity.” The museum officials should be saluted for standing firm under a storm of criticism and for holding to the facts.
After all, only the truth shall set us free.