Posts Tagged ‘islam’


Well, perhaps not “dazed,” but certainly very split in their opinion. This was one of those stories, just a few hours old as I’m posting it, that I clicked on just to see how people would react: “Supremes Rule for Bearded Muslim Inmate.” The rule was in place in Arkansas and 9 other states based on the idea of easy inmate recognition amongst guards and ability of inmates to hide contraband in their beards.

On the one hand, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled 9 to 0 that a prison in Arkansas (and among all Arkansas state prisons) that prohibited inmates from growing facial hair could not prohibit that. The Muslim inmate, Gregory Holt, wanted to grow it as part of his religious observance.

But on the other hand … he’s a Muslim!! And that’s enough for WND commenters to just hate it. Well, that and he’s a prisoner (“TruBluAmerican” wrote: “You’re in prison you pig, you have no rights beyond 3 squares and a roof over your head, which is MORE than a lot of law abiding people have!”)

And so, on the one hand, you have “kingdad” who wrote:

Be Glad that they chose to uphold Religious Liberty as their are more and bigger Religious liberty cases coming down the pike. Important cases compared to this minor case of insignificance. All the other states have rules that permit State Prison inmates to grow beards esp. if it is a part of their Religious beliefs. Other religions have beards that are also mandatory, some Jews, the Sikhs for example.

But you have a reply by “Elena” who wrote: “You think the SCOTUS will come to the rescue of the former Atlanta Fire Chief? Keep dreaming. Only non-Christians are protected.” (This is in reference to an Atlanta fire chief who was fired by the mayor because of his virulently anti-gay statements.) A view echoed by “SATCitizen” who wrote: “OK Supreme Court. . .now you better remember this ruling when it comes to CHRISTIANS’ beliefs and the violation of.”

Or, you have “freedom defender” who wrote: “The rules on beards is rediculous to say the least. But once again, these liberal judges side with the muslim. This country has gone to hell in a hand basket, to use an old term.”

It’s interesting, sometimes, to see how cognitive dissonance plays out with this sort of thing.


Over the weekend, in response to the terrorist attack in France, Rupert Murdoch (owner of FOX “news” and various other companies) tweeted the following: “Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.”

Regardless of your political or religious leanings, you can probably see the the idiocy in that statement. If you can’t, the author best known for her Harry Potter series pointed it out to him in two tweets: “I was born Christian. If that makes Rupert Murdoch my responsibility, I’ll auto-excommunicate. http://t.co/Atw1wNk8UX” and “@dom209 The Spanish Inquisition was my fault, as is all Christian fundamentalist violence. Oh, and Jim Bakker.”

In other words, one cannot hold everyone who follows a particular belief system – religious or otherwise – responsible for everyone else who follows that belief system. Seems pretty obvious.

But then, there’s the World Net Daily audience. WND published a three-paragraph snippet from NBC News headlined, “J.K. Rowling Goes Bonkers on Rupert Murdoch.” Hyperbole much?

WND commenters reacted in the opposite manner as you might expect any normal person to do. There’s the top-rated comment by “bluevanda” which states, “When did the opinion of a writer of fictional books on witches have any importance in the governing of any nation? Murdoch was right.”

Or more succinctly, second-highest rated comment by “prometheus2” was, “Murdoch was spot on . . .”

Or the third-highest rated comment was by “TruBluAmerican,” who wrote, “What a dumb twit! So, why doesn’t she let Harry stop fighting the ‘evil’ and succumb to it?”

And, just for fun, since this is WND and there are lots of fundie Christians there who believe in literal witches and wizards, there’s the comment by “02word,” all spelling, grammar, and line breaks preserved:

“J.K…… the Bible says that there are NO good witches or wizards they are all evil in the sight of GOD.
You are an agent of satan and luring children into a false hope which is an abomination to GOD! Because of You , a 6 yr. old called Jesus weak & stupid..repent and turn before you can’t.”


Larry Klayman, perhaps better known as the guy who led thousands tens of people in Washington, D.C. in an attempt to get President Obama to resign, really doesn’t like Muslims. Which is like saying “water is wet” when talking about most columnists on World Net Daily.

In this case, after his failure, perhaps Klayman thought he’d have better luck spreading his Islamophobia by attaching it with a paperclip to anti-immigation sentiment among the broader conservative movement. For now, Klayman is advocating what America did to the Irish and then the Chinese and many other ethnic groups a century ago— limit immigration: “Time to Limit Muslim Immigration.”

Here’s the opening paragraph:

The time for political correctness is over. It is time to call it like it is. The nation hangs in the balance, and making excuses for the destructive conduct of President Barack Hussein Obama and his American Muslim constituency no longer cuts it. His acts are not the result of someone who is ill-prepared and disconnected from the office of the president. He and his racist, anti-white, socialist, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian minions – from Attorney General Eric Holder, to Secretary of State John Kerry, to closet Muslim Director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Brennan – know exactly what they are doing. To complement the race war Obama and Holder have stoked at home, Obama and Brennan are bent on furthering an Islamic caliphate in the Middle East and around the globe. These are evil men, bent on taking the United States and its allies down. For Obama’s part, he not only identifies with his Muslim roots, he acts on them. Brennan is simply the white stooge who, among others, helps Obama carry out the plan.

That’s an impressive amount of hate in a single paragraph. It seems like anyone he hates is a Muslim. Doesn’t matter if they’re not, to Larry Klayman, they’re just hiding it.

It seems like Klayman’s argument is one of self-defense: “While Muslims have thus far not succeeded in wiping us off the face of the earth, much less exterminating Israel – the land of Jesus and Moses – the bottom line is that most of them hate our guts.”

And, there’s almost no such thing as a good Muslim: “If American Muslims had tried to play a constructive role with their terrorist brothers, that would be one thing. But by and large they sit back and silently cheer events like September 11, or the beheading of American journalists.”

So, he wants to stop all immigration for anyone who is Muslim, “unless there are proven and legitimate family or humanitarian reasons for entry.”

He claims he’s not being racist, he’s just trying to protect America! Never mind that less than 2% of Americans are Muslim. Or that the largest, most comprehensive survey of Muslims show that they are just as likely to reject radical and militant Islam as the average American.

But don’t let facts get in the way of bigotry.

Meanwhile, WND’s Lord Monckton decides to tackle the Issues of Our Day in a different way: “The Quran Is Illegal.”

Since I’m a big advocate of the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech, even if it’s speech I don’t like, I was interested to see what Monckton’s reasoned justification would be. His first sentence made me dubious I would find it: “For obvious reasons, incitement to murder is a serious crime.” When I read that, I figured he was going to say that because there are verses in the Quran that advocate violence, it should be illegal.

Along the way looking for this passage, I came across this sentence, which directly contradicts Larry Klayman: “The great majority of Muslims, wherever they are in the world, do their best to live in peace with their neighbors.”

He points these out:

For instance: “Fight and kill those who join other gods with Allah wherever you find them; besiege them, seize them, lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush” (Sura 9, Verse 5).

Or: “Make war upon such of those to whom the scriptures have been given who believe not in Allah, or in the last day, and who forbid not what Allah and his apostle have forbidden, until they pay tribute” (9.29).

Or: “When you encounter the infidels, strike off their heads, until you have made a great slaughter among them” (47.4).

And here’s his justification, just as I predicted:

Given the venom on every page of this extended incitement to murder anyone who does not follow Islam, it is surprising that there is not more Islamic terror than there is.

Craven public authorities have failed to act against the circulation of the Quran in its present form because they fear a violent backlash.

How, then, is this manifestly illegal text to be dealt with? It is not our custom to ban books, for freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution.

However, it is our custom to prosecute for incitement to murder. And the fact that incitement is on every page of what is said to be a holy book does not diminish, still less extinguish, the offense.

So, the Quran is a person and he or she is inciting murder. Well, I guess if corporations are people, too …

Here’s the problem: Monckton is correct. Not that it should be illegal, but that “freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution.” If it weren’t, then most of the writers from World Net Daily would be in prison for calling for, among other things, overthrows of the US government and various incitements of violence against non-straight people and against anyone who isn’t Christian or Jewish. Some of them on WND itself, but for the most part, they tend to confine their outright calls for such things to other media outlets.

If that explanation doesn’t work, I think that “Rm Mize”‘s top-rated comment is also good justification:

How’s this for incitement to murder?

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

Oh, but that’s not the Qu’ran. That’s Deuteronomy 13:6-11 (NIV)

Do you plan on making the Bible illegal as well? Or just the Torah? You do realize that Islam is related to Christianity in the same way Christianity is related to Judaism, right? I’m not advocating it as a belief system, I’m just saying that your knee-jerk reactions are hypocritical. You come off looking more like Pharisees than followers of Christ–who was actually pretty accepting of diversity if his closest friends are anything to go by.


This is a sad story, portrayed on WND a week ago in a three-paragraph snippet from Tulsa World: “Ex-Muslim Sus Church for Baptism News.” Here’s the story:

A Muslim convert to Christianity is suing First Presbyterian Church and its pastor, the Rev. James D. Miller, alleging that church leaders published an announcement of his baptism on the Internet after assuring him they would not do so.

The Tulsa County resident, identified only as John Doe in court papers for his own safety, alleges that because the news of his conversion appeared on the Internet, he was kidnapped on a trip to his native Syria by radical Muslims seeking to enforce Shariah law.

According to the filing in Tulsa District Court, he was bound, beaten and tortured for several days, and was forced to spend 18 hours a day in a 55-gallon electrified drum. He also was stabbed several times, shot, and threatened with beheading.

Now, I’m not condoning what the “radical Muslims” did. Apostasy in Islam (rejecting the Islamic faith if you were Muslim at any point in the past) is considered to be a serious offense, and there are several countries where it is punishable by death.

However, and because of that, it makes what the pastor did all the more unforgivable, especially if the allegation is true (that the pastor “[assured] him they would not” put his name on the website of being a convert).

What I find repugnant is that many of the 46 WND commenters have no sympathy for the John Doe and no condemnation for the pastor. Here is a sampling of the top several comments:

“AnitaHaircut” — “Jesus Christ said, “He who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.” “He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it.” Matthew 10:39,39
Also Matthew 24:9 states, “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation, and will kill you and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name.” Matthew 24:9. Yes, we will be hated, many have been threatened, tortured, murdered and it will only get worse. Because Satan hates Jesus and His followers, this is the price we pay until He comes. Be prepared.” I’m sure that’s of great comfort to John Doe while he’s recovering from being stabbed and shot.

“nobody” — “Jesus said, “But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven” Matt 10:33 (KJV)” Uh huh … more words.

“Reason2012” decided to post a lengthy, multi-paragraph diatribe with the theme, “Islam is not a religion – it’s a political system of hate promoted through violence with religious sounding phrases interspersed.” That might be true, it might not — but what about the pastor who posted about this that started it all?

“Redtorino007” — “When you are baptized in Christ it is always put in the paper, its because you announce to the world who you are and who you believe in.” Except when you’re told it won’t be because you explain you’ll be killed for it.

Now, those are the top-rated comments. There are a few which are much lower rated that actually do feel sorry for the guy and think the pastor did the wrong thing. But, welcome to the echo chamber that is World Net Daily.

Edited to Add (same day): Not only am I behind in WND, I’m behind in my news reading. Here’s a post on the Washington Post that goes into more detail on the lawsuit.


This story is brought to you by Christian Love™. Sigh …

I’ve talked a bit about Pamela Geller before on this blog, and I think for brevity that I’ll just link to Right Wing Watch’s page of articles on her. She is about as islamophobic as one can be. Her World Net Daily column from January 19 is another good example: “Islam in a Public School.”

Assuming it’s not made up, the bulk of her column is a letter from a concerned parent. The short-short version is that the 4th grade child (age ~9) goes to a charter school. Parents are conservative and live in a pocket of very conservative in an otherwise liberal state. Child was picked up by Mom, “as she got in the car, she proclaimed, “Allah is great,” and then said it in Arabic.” Mom was so furious that she “was shaking.” Told Dad, Dad was mad, wrote long letter on homework saying daughter will not do it, demanded an A anyway. “Their previous unit was the Middle Ages, in which they were learning about castles, kings and queens, and even about the Plague. That unit was completely fine, but when I learned they were learning about Islam.” Called school Vice Principal, got kid taken out of class until the unit was done. Started Facebook group, other parents pulled their kids out. But …

When this Islam unit happened, another parent made a post in the group protesting the fact that Islam was being taught. She and I and a few other parents all gave our thoughts on the matter. The interesting part is that the majority of parents who responded to this post made us out to be crazy and ignorant. They were happy that Islam was being taught, because they wanted their kids to be cultured and learn about other ways of life that they normally would not learn about in our super conservative town. When they were informed of how Islam is not the religion of peace that it was being made out to be in the classes, there was silence. No response at all.

Um, yeah lady. Because at some point, there’s just no use arguing with crazy. If you want your child to grow up ignorant of every other culture and religion, so be it. But you need to realize that REGARDLESS of your own views, if you raise your child to be ignorant, she will remain ignorant unless she can escape you. That can only negatively affect her in the world, unless you expect her to stay perpetually in your small town and never have anything to do with anything beyond it.

Ms. Geller’s column garnered 61 ratings for an average 4.66/5 stars, and it has 141 comments. That’s one of the more engaging columns I’ve seen of hers, or at least that I’ve written about. It’s not worth going into the comments because, as usual, they are what one would expect of WND. There are also none that are TOO too crazy (at least, not beyond what I’ve already quoted in this post).


Ah, double-standards, the subject of most religion pieces I comment on about WND. This is one of those links to another news source (Tulsa World) with only three paragraphs printed but that garnered 120 comments so far, and still counting: “Oklahoma’s Ban on Sharia Tossed by Federal Judge.”

Alright, this isn’t a hard issue. Goes like this: Oklahoma voters in a profound moment of islamophobia passed a constitutional amendment that bans courts from taking into account any form of shariah law (law based on the Islamic teachings); it was called “Save Our State.” Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, sued. He sued on the basis of it violating the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (for those who don’t know, the federal constitution trumps state constitutions).

When the lawsuit was filed on November 4, 2010, pretty much immediately after voters approved it by 70% to 30% (sigh), the US District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a preliminary injunction on November 29, 2010, under the premise that the plaintiff was very likely to be successful and that harm would be done if the ban was in effect until the case was resolved.

The amendment was pretty clear:

The judge wrote in her order that “it is abundantly clear that the primary purpose of the amendment was to specifically target and outlaw Sharia law and to act as a preemptive strike against Sharia law to protect Oklahoma from a perceived ‘threat’ of Sharia law being utilized in Oklahoma courts.” …

She noted that “the public debate, public discussions, articles, radio ads and robocalls” regarding SQ 755 all primarily and overwhelmingly focused on Sharia law. “Given this context, the court finds any reasonable voter would have perceived SQ 755 as a referendum on Sharia law,” she wrote.

Of course, the “threat” from Shariah law is non-existant also due to the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The Amendment was in search of a problem that did not exist, could not legally exist, and served to single out a certain religion du jour:

Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, issued a written statement saying: “This law unfairly singled out one faith and one faith only. This amendment was nothing more than a solution in search of a problem. We’re thrilled that it has been struck down.”

I think that the commenter “Arch” put it very well on WND, though he earned only 2 up-votes and 3 down-votes for it:

Let me preface this by saying I think Sharia law is horrible, archaic, and anti-woman. It’s a disgusting system of legal codes.

That said, I *think* I understand the logic here:

1. First Amendment says that you have freedom of religion.

2. Say two consenting adults do something like say they want their estate handled based on Sharia precepts. Freedom of religion says they should be able to do that, right?

3. But they wouldn’t be able to under the Oklahoma ban.

4. Therefore, they no longer have freedom of religion, so it had to be tossed as unconstitutional.

Let’s take the above example and replace “Sharia” with “Talmudic.” There are some Orthodox Jewish rules that I think are also horrible, archaic, and anti-woman. But, if two people want to sign a document that says they want their estate and funeral rights in accordance with the Talmud, then they wouldn’t be able to if Oklahoma passed the exact same amendment, just banning Jewish law instead of Sharia.

So long as the legal precepts that they want to use don’t conflict with US law, they should be able to do it, otherwise you’re interfering with their religion which violates the First Amendment.

Does that make sense? Or am I missing something?

Many people responded. Every response contrary to Arch’s (which were all but one or two) were pretty much exactly along the same theme: Islam = Muslim = Shariah. According to WND commenters, there is no difference. No one actually directly addressed Arch’s points, instead choosing to respond with further fear- and hate-motivated non sequitur, and likely willful misunderstandings. Despite Arch’s follow-up:

I don’t disagree that Islam has demonstrated remarkable violence in our present-day world and many islamic countries are very “trigger happy” when it comes to insulting their religion. Remember though that people do very violent and horrible things in the name of pretty much every religion (Catholic Spanish Inquisition, Orthodox Jews stoning women because they wouldn’t move to the back of a bus).

But, the legal codes based in a religion are a separate issue and the First Amendment I thought clearly applies here that the government can make no law respecting one religion over another, and the converse as well — making laws against one religion and not others. I think my example still stands, again unless I’m missing something.

I’m not trying to start an argument here over whether one religion makes people more violent than another, I’m just trying to understand this decision with respect to freedom of people to follow the rules laid forth in their religion of choice and the courts respecting that.

Meanwhile, the top-rated comments are fairly expected. “cmblake6” with 34 up and 1 down vote stated: “Sha(t)ria law is not American law. Therefore anyone who “declared it unconstitutional” must be removed from the American Court System.”

“HopalongCassidy” with 22 up and 0 down has: “Is this judge out of his mind? Sharia is not American law and has no place whatsoever in the US judicial system. This judge needs to be impeached and removed from the bench !”

Of course, we throw in conspiracy for good measure, with “wearyconservative1946” responding: “Unless I’ve been misinformed, this judge isn’t a he. SHE’S a black woman which to me, poses the question of whether or not she’s a member of the black muslim movement involved in the take over and re-establishment of the United States as a 6th or 7th century nation of pagan, uncivilized, savages.”

Ah, racism and islamophobia with conspiracy, all wrapped into two hate-filled sentences!

Updated August 23, 2013: On August 20, Joseph Farah devoted his own column to this: “Shariah Law: Protected by Constitution?” Same basic stuff as the above, but thought I’d give the update.


World Net Daily is a bastion of tolerance and just general mutual respect and getting-along’ed-ness. Hence, a post to a Vatican Radio story, headlined as “Pope Urges Respect Between Christians, Muslims,” of course generated over 450 comments of agree-ance within the last two days.

That’s why I found it amazing that — admittedly, just a few 440 of the 450 — comments were negative. For example, we have “MATNC” who wrote:

I find this to be offensive as a Catholic. I don’t see Christians killing muslims in the middle east. I don’t see Christians killing their imans. I would just like to know what is his message. I find it almost insulting that he said this.Especially in light of the fact they just killed a priest in Syria. Their burning Coptic churches in Egypt. Their raping and killing young Christian girls in the middle east. Christians are doing none of these things so I find this to be wrong. He should have asked the muslims to refrain from their behavior and NOT lecture Christians.

I don’t remember the Catholics doing anything bad in history, of course. I mean, the Vatican’s ban on a simple thing like condoms that are around 85% effective at preventing the spread of HIV is just a gift to the world.

The second-highest rated comment (that was the top) is by “Patti_Mi” who wrote this:

So Christians are supposed to “respect” Muslims? Is he serious? How can I have respect for someone who worships a phony god and is willing to kill anyone who won’t worship this phony god or his false prophet. Do you think they respect me and my God, Jesus Christ?

This pope is showing his true colors pretty early in his pontificate. He won’t condemn homosexuality and he thinks we should respect the people of the phony religion of Islam and their phony god. I can’t wait to see what he comes up with next.

Ah, another example of True Christian Love™.


Based on a few different sources I found, there are probably around 1500 mega-churches (≥2000 people or more, weekly attendance) in the United States. Of course, by “church” I mean a place to worship Jesus in some form of Christianity. Now, heaven forbid that mosques (that whole “Islam/Muslim” thing) get in on the movement.

But, in a story by Chelsea Schilling, we have just that horror: “$100 Million Mega-Mosque Coming to This State.” “This state” being Maryland, where a 15-acre mosque is being built in Lanham.

In the third paragraph, we can see where this WND article is going:

As the Clarion Project explains, mosques have been springing up all over the U.S. in recent years. As many as 80 percent of the mosques in America have been built in the last 12 years – since the 2001 terror attacks.

For those who don’t know (I didn’t), the Clarion Project (or Fund) is … “a pro-Israel New York City-based nonprofit organization founded in 2006 whose stated mission is “to educate Americans about issues of national security,” with its main focus on what it calls “the most urgent threat of radical Islam.” So, a good neutral source for this article.

What are these mega-mosques going to do? The article explains:

“These radical mosques often promote the installation of Sharia law, an extreme ideology that considers ‘non-believers’ to be infidels. According to Wahhabis, jihad or support of jihad is a Muslim duty. They believe that suicide bombers and martyrs are worthy of the highest praise and reward. And radicals are anticipating the day when an Islamic state will one day span the U.S.”

As many as four studies have independently concluded that 80 percent of U.S. mosques “were teaching jihad, Islamic supremacism, and hatred and contempt for Jews and Christians,” Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has reported.

WND also warns:

In his 2010 exclusive WND column, William Federer, author of “What Every American Needs to Know About the Quran: A History of Islam and the United States,” listed dozens of historical cases in which mosques were erected as signs of Muslim conquest.

So there you have it. Oh, and don’t believe the builders, who are backed by Turkey’s Islamist government (it’s not, it’s fiercely secular). They claim that it’s just for:

  • Religious services and education
  • Turkish language education
  • Turkish history lectures
  • Turkish culinary arts classes
  • Cultural exchange
  • Recreation, sports, and health
  • U.S. immigration and citizenship
  • Women’s equality and empowerment education
  • Civic engagement and public advocacy
  • Business, commerce and trade development
  • Spiritual wellness

The article has over 1100 comments a day after it was posted. I don’t think it’s worth going into them.