Some brilliant posts by Agha exsposing the hyocrisy of Faisal Gazi (writing here as Effendi) and Spittoon:
Posted June 18, 2011 at 5:37 AM | Permalink
Wafa Sultan mulls over the idea of nuking Mecca and Medina — “change or be crushed” is how she describes it. Incidentally, she’s a hero over at JihadWatch where a writer suggested that protesters in Egypt be massacred.
Nonie Darwish fabricated her life story? No! Also a friend of the JihadWatch/AtlasShrugs crew.
Aw, and sweet Ayaan Hirsi Ali, that good friend of Geert Wilders (who wants the ban the Qur’an and tax the hijab). She also wants to ban a lot of things, including Islamic schools and equal rights for Muslims. A good friend of the zany Pamela Geller too.
Anyways, these people deserve our full and uncompromising support.
Posted June 18, 2011 at 3:53 PM | Permalink
Note how my good friend Effendi assumes that I’m a supporter of Khomeini, Mawdudi, etc. simply because I take issue with the idea of nuking Mecca and Medina. Non sequitur much?
Also note his belief that Islam and radical Islam are the same things. Ayaan makes it clear that radical Islam is the true and only true form of Islam — hence why she wants to ban “Qur’an schools,” among other things. Can you at least condemn her for wanting to restrict the civil rights of Muslims? No?
What you’re saying is that none of them are half as bad as Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan and A H Ali, aren’t you? Or are you saying that they are simply gentle, placid souls who have been misportrayed by the kaafr media?
Nope, I’m saying it’s hypocritical of you to support the three frauds (Sultan, Darwish, and Ayaan). Just imagine if some obscure Muslim cleric said something like “Islam is at war with the West.” You would take issue with that, and yet you wouldn’t care and indeed support such sentiment when it comes from Westerners.
The facts speak for themselves notwithstanding the widespread Islamophobia in Western society. The claims of all three of the aforementioned frauds have been called into question (see the Economist’s article on Ayaan Ali Hirsi, for example) and all three of them are touted by Robert Spencer et al. as “freedom fighters.”
Posted June 18, 2011 at 6:00 PM | Permalink
grow the fuck up
Eh, what was that about calming down, dear?
I find it funny how you brush aside the bigoted rhetoric of Ayaan, Sultan, Darwish, et al. because apparently there’s some good stuff they have to say. You know, like attributing FGM to Islam (despite that fact most Muslims don’t practice it and its textual support is extremely weak) or nuking Mecca and Medina and the like. How does the fact that they support banning the burqa palliate mulling over the ideas of nuking Mecca or having a war with Islam (i.e., Muslims)? Or, do I actually need to explain why nuking Mecca and advocating restricting the rights of Muslims, among other things, are morally reprehensible? In your words, I need to “debunk” their assertions and explain why we shouldn’t restrict the rights of Western Muslims and nuke Mecca and Medina. You’re a joke.
Same goes for Raymod Ibrahim. He blames the repression of Copts on conspiracy theories, yet he purports conspiracy theories against Muslims. The taqiyya libel, for example, is one of his favorite (see the link for a rebuttal of his article by Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst, a reliable source). He also advocates converting Muslims to Christianity and believes that mainstream Islam is chief force behind Islamist terrorism. He rejects any suggestion that perhaps the repression and occupation of millions of Muslims may have something to do with terrorism. This is despite the fact that the aforementioned is what most terrorists say is their motivation. Does the fact that the Library of Congress took a stand against his rabid anti-Muslim bigotry mean anything to you? Or do I need to explain why insinuating that at least 200 million Muslims are all for destroying the West.*
There are people who actually care about the rights of women and minorities in the Muslim world, like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. There are people who care and don’t have an axe to grind against Muslims and Islam.
So far all you’ve done is point fingers are terrorist or Muslim extremists in an attempt to palliate the bigoted tirades of Islamophobes. Then again, this is a silly blog that whines about “Hamza” going off about the Qur’an but has no problem with the hateful and indeed often genocidal rhetoric of Islamophobes. Really damages your credibility, undoubtedly.
* The 200 million number doesn’t even make sense because, according to recent polls, most Muslims condemn terrorism regardless of the target. And those who do support it do so chiefly for political reasons. In one Gallup poll, for example, over 95% of Muslims worldwide were against the 9/11 attacks. One would think, if 200 million of them supported destroying the West, surveys would produce different results.
Posted June 18, 2011 at 6:14 PM | Permalink
Also, Khomeini’s ideology is markedly different from that of Bin Laden et al. Regardless, they all purport their struggles as defensive.    In other words, the West attacked them first, not vice versa. Even if they believe offensive jihad is permissible, it remains a theological impossibility in reality, especially for Shi‘ites.
PS: Wouldn’t it be “Kuffar media” not “Kaafr media”?
1. Habeck, Mary R. Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror. New Haven: Yale UP, 2006. 110 Print.
2. Geltzer, Joshua Alexander. US Counter-terrorism Strategy and Al-Qaeda: Signalling and the Terrorist World-view. London: Routledge, 2010. 86. Print.
3. Brahimi, Alia. Jihad and Just War in the War on Terror. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. 106. Print
Again, you’re saying you disagree with “some” of what they say and agree with other parts of their incoherent ideology — in other words, you’ve rehashed your previous response.
I didn’t say that Muslims are snow-white, rather I said it’s hypocritical for you and other clowns to claim you support human rights and conversely support people who want to, and they this unapologetically, restrict the rights of Muslims in the West, nuke Mecca and Medina, etc. Muslims building a clock-tower may be pure evil, but it doesn’t change the undeniably hateful rhetoric of the Islamophobes praised in the above article.
Why can’t you bring yourself to condemn Ayaan, Sultan, and Darwish? They quite obviously deserve to be rejected by anyone interested in real equality and not just anti-Islamic polemics, contrary to what the above article says.
Here’s another statistic for you to marinade on. Since 2003, there have been more than 30,000 casualties due to Islamic terrorism in Pakistan alone. Ignore that at your peril, but try and give these people the real victim status when you’re struggling to hog it all for yourself.
The vast majority of the dead are Muslims. That fits perfectly with Ayaan’s “war with Islam” or Sultan’s “change or be crushed.”
Posted June 18, 2011 at 8:00 PM | Permalink
Oh sure, one of them mulls over nuking Mecca and the other says that Muslims in the West should have their rights restricted—but ignore all that and support their “efforts” anyway. Sorry, but I don’t support deranged people with bizarre ideologies. And, incidentally, they’re “raising awareness” has been called into question, meaning that the fantastical sob-stories they purport are likely fabricated to some degree.
Using your pathetic logic, you would support Pamela Geller — who has quite a long list of batshit crazy antics. Forget that she called for the destruction of the Golden dome, contemplated nuking majority Muslim countries, supported Stalin’s anti-Chechen pogroms, etc. because apparently she highlights honor killings.
All your three points are based on false assumptions: First, the sentiments of Ayaan et al. are indeed Islamophobic. If declaring war on 1.5 billion people or advocating nuking their holy city isn’t prejudiced, then nothing is. You seem to want me to explain what’s hateful about genocide and discriminatory laws, oddly enough. Second, I support equal rights for Muslim women so that “point” is based on a false premise. And your third point is a another sad attempt to cover up for the blog’s support for three lunatics. Being against misogyny and anti-Muslim bigotry aren’t mutually exclusive.
Oh, and I also notice you’ve avoided quite a few questions, the most relevant one: Do you condemn the bigoted sentiments of Ayaan et al.? You’re attempting to defend your support for them on the palpably weak grounds of “not everything they say is bad!” I suppose you must also support Karimov using that same logic; he does fight the big bad Islamists, after all.
Anyways, you seem to concede that some of what they say is pretty stupid. So would the author be wrong in saying that they “deserve our maximum support and solidarity” since some of them—by their own admission—want to restrict the rights of Muslims in the West? Or does that actually deserve everyone’s support.
Posted June 18, 2011 at 8:14 PM | Permalink
Not it doesn’t because their killers and the “war” they were killed in is waged upon them by Muslims – radical Islamic extremists to be precise. That is something you seem unprepared to discuss, let alone accept.
Uh huh, and I suppose that if non-Muslims were killing Muslims it would fit well with Ayaan’s absurd and simple-mined premise? (By the way, how would one wage a war against Islam? How do you destroy Islam — by wiping out its adherents? Even a cursory look at history reveals what happens when people attempt to destroy a religion, e.g. the Inquisition.) If Sultan has no problem with killing Muslims in Mecca then obviously she has no problem with dead Muslims in Pakistan.
And any evidence that the terrorists to a significant degree killed Pakistani Muslim civilians because they believed the West was at war with Islam? Speaking of which, if we are to condemn terrorists for advocating civilizational warfare then why not do the same with the rightwing nutters this site adores?
Posted June 18, 2011 at 8:17 PM | Permalink
The difference between you and me, Effendi, is that I condemn extremists, both Muslim and non-Muslim. You, on the other hand, can barely bring yourself to say even one thing negative about people who have no problem with dropping nuclear bombs on millions of civilians.
This blog is a joke.
“Bin Laden and his ilk” refers to followers of the so-called jihadist ideology, Bin Laden included, genius. I thought I’d take some liberties after you mentioned Sayyid Qutb and Mudadi.
I didn’t say that “Islamophobia” is directly responsible for terrorism, although it’s certainly shaping perceptions of Westerners in majority Muslim countries. What I would like to know is why you’re attempting to portray the West as the poor, hapless victim when 1) the facts show that jihadists purport their anti-Western struggle as defensive, 2) you didn’t buttress your aforementioned claim with any evidence, 3) Western nation undoubtedly caused much of the problems in the Middle East, 4) most of the dead are Muslims who undoubtedly disagree with the more unagreeable sentiments on this joke a blog.