Again, I reply not for the sake of MPAC,
but for the sake of lurkers and young people who might still be open-minded.
Another free ad for Guinness.
Because MPAC want to ban it.
From MPAC
Mark Humphys describes himself as Irish, Atheist, Liberal-right, Anti-jihad, Pro-American and last but not least Pro-Israel. He is also apparently anti-Muslim, though he sidesteps any claims of Islamophobia through a disingenuous labelling system – moderates are tolerable, extremists must be opposed. An extremist, using Humphrys' standards, not that anyone cares, is essentially a practicing Muslim.
Interestingly, while castigating every Muslim organisation in Ireland, he's also relied heavily on the rantings…sorry…writings of one Robert Spencer of JihadWatch.
Indeed, he's recently embedded Spencer's
5 point plan to eradicate Islamophobia,
we'll deal with that in a moment.
This of course implies more than a passing interest.
Robert Spencer has been linked by former associate Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs (another anti-Muslim site) to fascist politicians in Europe. Johnson has also exposed Spencer's affiliation with a group that wishes to reconquer Turkey and expel or slaughter the 150 Muslims currently residing there. The group Spencer has joined is called The Campaign for the Reconquista in Anatolia. Humphry's mentor wants to reconquer Turkey, is this part of his eradication of Islamophobia - essentially remove the object of scorn? Does Mark Humphrys condone this position and will he verbally distance himself from such vile rhetoric?
But let's take a look at this 5 point plan that Humphrys lauds. It begins with the disingenuous claim that there have been over 9000 violent attacks since 9/11. A ticker counter on Humphrys site puts the number at 14331. What this doesn't tell you is that the vast majority of those attacks have been carried out against occupying western forces in Muslim countries. Now we know that Humphrys and Spencer think that Muslims should simply allow themselves to be slaughtered, tortured and subjugated without creating a bother. But, thankfully the Quran and Sunnah, international law and most sensible people recognise the right to fight injustice, occupation and oppression.
The first point Spencer brings up is actually one we agree with. While we uphold the right of Muslims under occupation to resist said occupation and believe it is a duty of Muslims to support that struggle, we do not and cannot endorse terrorist acts against non-combatants in a land that is not considered dar-ul-harb. In fact, we believe it is an obligation upon Muslims to ensure that the festering sentiment that gave rise to 7/7 does not take hold and manifest itself in actions that will bring the community into disrepute. If Muslims in the UK or Ireland are aggrieved at the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere then they need to use the legitimate means available in these lands to make a difference. They should collectively lobby and use political means to bring about change. In Muslim majority constituencies, for example Dublin South, politicians depend on your vote. Use it! But we don't need the Spencers of this world to tell us what to do, our scholars have already guided us toward that which is best for our souls.
The second point is one we must disagree with vehemently. We believe it is our Islamic, moral and patriotic duty to bring about the conditions that will make Allah's authority in this and all lands manifest. We have argued before that, as we believe Shariah is the very best system available, it behoves us to unapologetically propagate it, anything less would be demonstrably and discriminatively miserly.
Spencer's third point is interesting in that it expects something of Muslims that they have been consistently denied - coexistence. We do not believe that coexistence can manifest itself fully in the face of the continued aggression, discrimination and inequality enacted toward Muslims. As Malcolm X famously said, 'sitting at the table does not make you a diner, unless you eat some of what's on that plate.' When Muslims peruse the social landscape and witness the barriers and hurdles placed before them, it's little wonder they feel distanced.
The fourth point expects Muslims to renounce what Spencer calls 'violent' jihad (what does he want us to do blow bubbles when Zionist Jews and American soldiers fire on us?) and so-called supremacist ideas. In other words, Spencer wants to pacify the Muslim populace without offering real peace. We must renounce Jihad but they retain the right to occupy, maim and kill hundreds and thousands of Muslims. Not only that, but we must abandon any idea that Islam is the only way, that it is superior to all other religions and that it will once again dominate the world. Of course, in abandoning Jihad we condone their subjugation of Muslim lands, and in giving up the idea that Islam is supreme we must take on board the idea that democracy is superior - in effect we must renounce our religion. Over my dead and lifeless body!
Finally, Spencer wants us to police ourselves (more evidence of his schizophrenia) and shop 'jihadists'. But what's a Jihadist? Well it's someone who believes it's right to fight against injustice and oppression, to 'fight them in the way they fight you'. It's someone who believes that Allah's law is the ultimate authority in the land and that Muslims should work to establish that and it is one who believes that Islam is superior to all other religions. In other words, if you're a practicing Muslim you're a Jihadist.
Here's our five point plan for the peace and societal harmony we all desire:
1. The west should remove itself from all Muslim lands and should cease its support of the belligerent state called 'Israel'. 2. The west should cease all involvement and meddling in Muslim affairs and Muslim lands. 3. Muslims living in the west should be afforded equal dignity and respect without preconditions. The cloak of suspicion must be removed. 4. Muslims in the west should be allowed to govern themselves under Shariah as Christians and Jews were given liberty to do in the Islamic state. 5. The west should engage in a policy of positive discrimination to redress the lack of Muslim representation in both political and media circles. If there is to be peaceful coexistence then Muslims need to be in prominent positions to enact and encourage that alongside their non-Muslim counterparts.
Humphys ends his whinging and whining with the trite, 'whining grievance-mongering groups like MPAC are not listening'. Listen Mark, when you have something useful to say we may – as ever we live in hope.
From me
"Mark Humphys describes himself as Irish, Atheist, Liberal-right, Anti-jihad, Pro-American and last but not least Pro-Israel. He is also apparently anti-Muslim, though he sidesteps any claims of Islamophobia through a disingenuous labelling system - moderates are tolerable, extremists must be opposed. An extremist, using Humphrys' standards, not that anyone cares, is essentially a practicing Muslim."
An extremist is anyone who wants to force his religion on me by force of law.
Anyone who believes in sharia law.
Like you guys.
A typical rhetorical trick of extremist Muslims is to claim that anyone who opposes extremist Muslims
is "anti-Muslim".
If all Muslims were like the above, there would be no Islamophobia.
But unfortunately, there are lots of Muslims like you.
Hence lots of Islamophobia.
The challenge to Muslims in Ireland
"Interestingly, while castigating every Muslim organisation in Ireland"
Well I don't want to castigate every Muslim organisation in Ireland.
Can you find one of them that will give satisfactory answers to my challenge:
Open challenge to all Muslims in public life in Ireland
Can you openly state that it is wrong for Islamic countries
to arrest, or in any way prosecute:
Apostates.
Critics of Islam.
Blasphemers.
Proselytisers.
If any Muslim in public life in Ireland
declares this, tell me here.
Robert Spencer is a secret "fascist", or something
"Robert Spencer has been linked by former associate Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs (another anti-Muslim site) to fascist politicians in Europe."
Unconvincing.
Johnson has had a real meltdown over the last two years,
and has been de-linked by almost everyone on the right.
See my lengthy discussion on the
LGF blog war
where I explain how I find the claims that Spencer is a secret "racist" or secret "fascist" unconvincing.
"Johnson has also exposed Spencer's affiliation with a group that wishes to reconquer Turkey and expel or slaughter the 150 Muslims currently residing there. The group Spencer has joined is called The Campaign for the Reconquista in Anatolia. Humphry's mentor wants to reconquer Turkey, is this part of his eradication of Islamophobia - essentially remove the object of scorn? Does Mark Humphrys condone this position and will he verbally distance himself from such vile rhetoric?"
This is rubbish.
Spencer has replied to this here.
He was foolish to accept a friend request from a Facebook group without reading it properly,
but you have to believe in conspiracy theories to think this other group
represents his "real" beliefs,
and his years of writing don't represent his beliefs at all.
As Spencer says:
"it is noteworthy that Johnson can't produce a shred of evidence for his claim from anything I have written. Instead, he has relied on fellow libelblogger Kejda Gjermani's increasingly implausible guilt-by-association sand castles, but nothing from what I've actually written, in eight books, hundreds of articles, and thousands of blog posts. You'd think that if I'd be cavalier enough to join a genocidal Facebook group on purpose, because I approved of what it stood for, that the mask would have slipped a few other times."
The absurd claim that the jihad is mainly against the West
"But let's take a look at this 5 point plan that Humphrys lauds. It begins with the disingenuous claim that there have been over 9000 violent attacks since 9/11. A ticker counter on Humphrys site puts the number at 14331. What this doesn't tell you is that the vast majority of those attacks have been carried out against occupying western forces in Muslim countries."
Rubbish.
Take a look at the list of jihadi attacks.
How many of these are against "occupying western forces in Muslim countries".
Very few.
Check the list
in the past.
It was also very few.
Check the list again in 1 year's time.
It will still be very few.
Or check it in 2 years' time.
Or 50 years' time (for the jihad goes on forever).
It will still be very few.
Most jihadi attacks are against innocent civilians, non-Muslim religious minorities, and the "wrong" type of Muslim.
Here's a few sample attacks that prove your whole world view is nonsense:
"Now we know that Humphrys and Spencer think that Muslims should simply allow themselves to be slaughtered, tortured and subjugated without creating a bother."
Liar.
You are a liar.
Why don't you quote Humphrys and Spencer then, if they allegedly "think" that?
Liar.
"But, thankfully the Quran and Sunnah, international law and most sensible people recognise the right to fight injustice, occupation and oppression."
So you support the fight against the Taliban then? Glad to hear it.
"we uphold the right of Muslims under occupation to resist said occupation"
So citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan
who don't like
the (imperfectly) elected governments in those countries
should turn immediately to violence
rather than, say, writing about it
and standing for election?
You are very quick to support violence when another way is possible (voting).
Do you support them bombing and killing voters?
"we do not and cannot endorse terrorist acts against non-combatants in a land that is not considered dar-ul-harb. In fact, we believe it is an obligation upon Muslims to ensure that the festering sentiment that gave rise to 7/7 does not take hold and manifest itself in actions that will bring the community into disrepute. If Muslims in the UK or Ireland are aggrieved at the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere then they need to use the legitimate means available in these lands to make a difference. They should collectively lobby and use political means to bring about change. In Muslim majority constituencies, for example Dublin South, politicians depend on your vote. Use it! But we don't need the Spencers of this world to tell us what to do, our scholars have already guided us toward that which is best for our souls."
Yes, well it's very nice that you don't believe in violence in Ireland right now.
But I think we're setting the bar a bit low if we infidels get excited about that.
What other immigrant minority is even queried
about whether it supports violence instead of democracy?
Muslims (*)
seem to be the only immigrants
who threaten violence (Madrid, Theo van Gogh,
7/7, 21/7, Glasgow, and dozens of foiled plots)
and oppression (demands for sharia law).
All other immigrant groups (like Hindus, Chinese, Koreans, Africans, Caribbeans)
seem to be cool with the West, and move here because they like it.
Only yesterday (as I write this),
an American Muslim, the son of Palestinian/Jordanian Muslim immigrants,
killed 13 people in Fort Hood, Texas, for jihad.
No other immigrant group produces attacks like this.
"By an almost two-to-one margin, Midwest Lutherans
voiced solid opposition to decapitation, suicide bombing,
and chemical warfare in a new comprehensive survey of their social attitudes.
...
"If there is one headline here, it's how remarkably moderate the Lutheran community is,"
said Pew director Andrew Kohut of the survey
...
Kohut pointed to one of the study's key findings that
only 29% of all respondents agreed that "bloody, random violence against infidels"
was "always" or "frequently" justified,
versus 56% who said such violence was "seldom" or "never" justified.
The approval of violence rose slightly among younger Lutherans
and when the hypothetical violence was targeted against Presbyterians,
but still fell well short of a majority."
"Although a majority 87% of respondents agreed that "The world should be brought to submission under global Lutheran conquest and eternal perfect rule," there was a great deal of disagreement on the means to accomplish it.
...
"Taken as a whole, the results show that Midwest Lutherans
emphatically support a moderate, mainstream path to world domination," said Kohut."
(*)
Yes, I know not all Muslims threaten the West.
Lots of Muslim immigrants
like the West.
They aren't all sharia-lovers and
whining grievance-mongers like you.
Lots of Muslim immigrants
came here to escape from people like you.
"The second point is one we must disagree with vehemently. We believe it is our Islamic, moral and patriotic duty to bring about the conditions that will make Allah's authority in this and all lands manifest. We have argued before that, as we believe Shariah is the very best system available, it behoves us to unapologetically propagate it, anything less would be demonstrably and discriminatively miserly."
Fine.
MPAC is a threat to me and to my liberties.
MPAC is a threat to Irish freedom.
I'm glad that's cleared up.
"The fourth point expects Muslims to renounce what Spencer calls 'violent' jihad (what does he want us to do blow bubbles when Zionist Jews and American soldiers fire on us?)"
How about stopping targeting mosques, churches, synagogues,
schools, shops, restaurants, markets, public transport,
weddings, funerals, aid workers,
children, non-combatants and religious minorities?
Wouldn't that be a start?
If jihadis only fought against military targets, I would still support war against them.
But I wouldn't view them as quite as evil as I do now.
"We must renounce Jihad but they retain the right to occupy, maim and kill hundreds and thousands of Muslims."
Nonsense. Western armies don't want to "kill Muslims".
If they did they could kill millions.
Why don't they?
No one wants to "kill Muslims".
Not a soul needed to have died in Iraq since 2003.
It is the choice of the jihad that there has been violence since 2003,
not the choice of the West.
The moral responsibility for all deaths in Iraq since 2003
lies with those Muslims who turned to violence
to resist the introduction of democracy.
The same goes for Afghanistan.
All violence in Afghanistan since 2001 is the fault of
those Muslims who turned to violence
rather than elections.
Check who is killing who
in these countries.
You will find that almost all civilian deaths are at the hands of the jihad,
not the West.
If you hate the West, why are you here?
"Not only that, but we must abandon any idea that Islam is the only way,
that it is superior to all other religions"
No. You can believe that if you want.
And I am free to not believe it.
"and that it will once again dominate the world."
That's right. You should give up that desire.
"Of course, in abandoning Jihad we condone their subjugation of Muslim lands, and in giving up the idea that Islam is supreme we must take on board the idea that democracy is superior - in effect we must renounce our religion. Over my dead and lifeless body!"
Why do you live in the West, if you hate it so much?
Why don't you live in some hellhole where they have sharia law?
Why should we who like the West be happy
to have people like you living here?
Seriously.
How can you threaten Ireland with oppression and then complain that we don't like you?
This is the West.
If you don't like it, please leave.
If you want to destroy all this, we don't want you here.
Photo from here.
See terms of use.
Taken in Bogotá, Colombia
(the West is a big place).
A pro-Ireland Muslim,
Mohammed Al Kabour,
of the Supreme Muslim Council of Ireland,
has begun to take on the Ireland-hating fanatics of MPAC.
He initially made comments on their site
but they deleted them,
so he has set up his own site.
"Some commentators have asked why more Muslims in Ireland haven't spoken up against the disturbing and repugnant views on this website, a particularly vile example of which is the above post. Muslims in Ireland who I have talked to are almost uniformly horrified by this website but also realize that it consists of one fanatical individual
...
Egan is a propagandist a Wahhabi Goebbels if you will and the danger he poses is in fermenting hatred and imagined grievances that might inspire the next generation of would be fanatics.
...
We in the Irish Muslim community have on the whole felt part and parcel of the wider Irish society for decades, this is the country where many of us emigrated to in pursuit of a better life and opportunities; or fleeing persecution, and freedom from religious, ethnic or political discrimination it is a country that we in turn have contributed thousands of health professionals to, researchers academics and entrepreneurs and even a T.D. The majority of us are grateful for the opportunities afforded to us by this nation and not only do we respect the ideals of the democracy that we live in but also cherish them.
The likes of Liam Egan need to be isolated and deprived of a platform in which to spread this madness whenever possible,
...
I speak for a substantial number of Muslims who share my sentiment and I hope this will clear the perceived silence of the moderate majority whom by the nature of moderation lead varied lives free from the obsessions of these fanatics and cannot devote all their time to the rantings of fundamentalists in the periphery of the Irish Muslim community. The reality though is that when the occasion calls for it we must let our voices be heard and drown out these extremists and I am confident that we will rise to that challenge."
"The reason I have spoken out even though it may put me in danger of arrest by the Saudis the next time I travel to there is because I love Ireland, a country that has allowed me to pursue my life as I see fit free to express my thoughts even against the "rulers" without fear of abduction or torture. I consider it to be my home and for you to advocate Saudi Arabia as a model for Ireland is preposterous and dangerous, a few wayward youth might start believing your drivel and down the road we might have our own Irish home grown Richard Reid ...
Your loyalties Mr Egan have been made very clear and they do not lie with this nation and I can safely say that I am more of an Irish patriot than you will ever be even though I wasn't born in this country. Your macabre devotion to Saudi Arabia a country where torture, poverty, and corruption on an unprecedented scale is rife can only be explained by a debilitating and mentally unbalanced obsession after your indoctrination there, or, you are one of the hundreds of Saudi funded Wahhabi propagandists in the West. ... if that is the case than you are a traitor to Ireland and unworthy of its citizenship."
So they're not able to find extremism (like calls for genocide) in anything I have written.
Aha! I link to Robert Spencer. Therefore I must agree with
everything Spencer has ever written.
And I must agree with
everything Spencer has ever linked to.
Spencer
links to a Hindu fanatic girl, March 5, 2010, calling for atom bombs to be used against Pakistan.
She says
Pakistan "will be erased from the World Map.
We will spare Kashmir, but not Pakistan!
...
Kashmir would continue to exist, but not Pakistan.
...
The flag of India will flutter over Islamabad.
...
Kashmir will live! But there won't be any Pakistan."
Spencer does not say this. The girl says it.
The 13 yr old Hindu girl
is addressing a
VHP rally.
I agree that Spencer should not have touched this Hindu supremacist with a bargepole.
Various counter-jihad people call him on it in the comments:
"Please Robert, they are duping you! These people are not pro-western and they are definitely not secular."
"These Hindu extremists are of no use against the jihadis, as no doubt you could have surmised by their total absence during the siege of Bombay
or wherever there is a real firefight against the Islamists. They would rather vent their frustrations on Catholic nuns or Christian girls' schools or poor shopkeepers. It would do your site's reputation no good to be associated with these fools."
"There is no comparison between Hindu FANATICS and Islamic JIHADISTS. HOWEVER, Robert Spencer has stated countless times that we should not support people just because they are anti-Islam. He has denounced the BNP and other white nationalist organizations. Why? Because they are extremists. The same rule should apply to these people. There are so many Indian analysts out there who have realistic solutions to the menace of Pakistani sponsored terrorism. These people are NUTS."
Human Rights Watch, Aug 2008:
"the situation in Orissa state, where mobs, apparently instigated by the Hindu extremist Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) have .. [attacked] minority Christian targets. ... at least nine people are said to have been killed. Reports exist of two people burnt alive, three men hacked to death, a nun gang-raped and churches and houses destroyed".
It is terribly wrong for the normally rational
Spencer to link to this girl.
I would say the following:
It is not clear that Spencer agrees with the call for genocide.
He is a Christian, a group that is persecuted by
Hindu fanatics like this girl.
He never writes in support of Hindu supremacism.
He has never written in support of genocide in his thousands of posts,
and many articles and books.
Why can't we quote him in his own words if, as implied,
he agrees with everything the girl says?
This guilt-by-association thing can make it hard to link to anyone.
Does a link to someone on some issue
imply I agree with everything they say on every other issue?
Forever?
And even worse, everything they link to?
If so, then I can't link to Richard Dawkins on religion,
because of the
left-wing crap he talks about geopolitics.
I can't link to any religious conservative on politics
because of the nonsense they talk about God.
I can't link to the Guardian because of their vile
pro-jihad articles.
And so on.
I can't link to anyone.
Guilt-by-association
is a rather desperate tactic
only practiced when you can't nail the person in their own words.
Charles Johnson
is a master of this, but it is rather unconvincing.
Can't you address what people themselves actually say?
Spencer has written an ocean of words.
Are we to believe that this video represents his "true" beliefs
and his vast corpus of writings doesn't represent his beliefs at all.
