What if the American Neo-Nazi Party Explained Judaism To The FBI?
This is the most horrific scenario that one can think of in regards to Anti-Semitism, but it is happening to Muslims in the form of an extremist right wing Islamophobic manner. This is truly scary to have such a vile openly Muslim Hating individual like Robert Spencer trying to bolster hatred towards Muslims by our own Justice Department!
Robert Spencer himself needs to be investigated by the FBI in regards to his un-constitutional Muslim hating actions and rhetoric. Robert Spencer promotes the genocide of 1.5 billion people and fights against freedom of religion for Muslims in the USA. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves already because of such un-constitutional hatred of another religion. This extremist hatred of Muslims can not go unchecked by our Law Enforcement that is here to protect our safety and our rights. What message is this sending to the Muslim community?
I am truly disgusted by this vile and despicable action by Robert Spencer along with the rest of his vile and despicable actions and rhetoric against Muslims. His Islamophobic hate is worthy of a medal from Adolf Hitler himself. It is one thing to voice your opinions about a group of people you hate, such as the way Robert Spencer hates Muslims and would like to see all Muslims dead. However, it is another thing to explain that same hatred to our Justice Department, FBI, etc.
The Obama Administration needs to do an inquiry on this issue as well as the FBI investigating this vile character of hate.
Karen Armstrong wrote in her review of Spencer's books that he writes in hatred, deliberately manipulating evidence to support his thesis.
"When discussing Muhammad’s war with Mecca, Spencer never cites the Koran’s condemnation of all warfare as an ”awesome evil”, its prohibition of aggression or its insistence that only self-defence justifies armed conflict. He ignores the Koranic emphasis on the primacy of forgiveness and peaceful negotiation: the second the enemy asks for peace, Muslims must lay down their arms and accept any terms offered, however disadvantageous. There is no mention of Muhammad’s non-violent campaign that ended the conflict."
"People would be offended by an account of Judaism that dwelled exclusively on Joshua’s massacres and never mentioned Rabbi Hillel’s Golden Rule, or a description of Christianity based on the bellicose Book of Revelation that failed to cite the Sermon on the Mount. But the widespread ignorance about Islam in the West makes many vulnerable to Spencer’s polemic; he is telling them what they are predisposed to hear. His book is a gift to extremists who can use it to ”prove” to those Muslims who have been alienated by events in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq that the west is incurably hostile to their faith."Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto called Spencer a "radical intellectual" and accused him of "falsely constructing a divide between Islam and West." Regarding Spencer's blog JihadWatch, she said he uses the Internet to spread misinformation and hatred of Islam and presents a "skewed, one-sided, and inflammatory story that only helps to sow the seed of civilizational conflict."
Dinesh D'Souza, of the conservative Hoover Institution wrote after his debate with Spencer that Spencer downplays the passages of the Quran that urge peace and goodwill to reach one-sided opinions. He further contends that Spencer applies a moral standard to Muslim empires that could not have been met by any European empire.
Robert D. Crane called Spencer's work "superficially scholarly". Spencer inverts Islam's true teachings by omitting text from passage he quotes or by using unreliable and extremist sources.
Louay M. Safi, Khaleel Mohammed, and Carl Ernst assert that Spencer is an "Islamophobe" who supports preconceived notions through selection bias; they suggest, "he has no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity". They have objected to what they describe as Spencer's method of taking a position they deem to be radical (on apostasy, women, etc.) and then attribute that position to all of Islam, rather than situating it within ongoing discussions.
French academic historian, Ivan Jablonka, from École Normale Supérieure in Paris, in his study of similarities between the approaches to Islam of authors like Bat Ye'or, Robert Spencer, David Pryce-Jones and Daniel Pipes, argues that, to Spencer, "Islamist fundamentalists drive European politics" to such a point that "Zapatero's victory in Spain after Madrid blasts is presented by Spencer as an ultimate victory of jihadists." Such declarations, according to Jablonka, underline the similarities between Spencer's work and Bat Ye'or's views on "Eurabia." Jablonka notes that Spencer or Bat Ye'or's views lack academic seriousness: their purported historical and interpretative continuity between some data picked up from Middle Age Islamic civilization and modern activism is a political construction poorly substantiated. For Jablonka, writings of authors like Spencer or Bat Ye'or relentlessly intent to designate "new enemies for wars to come".
Among other individuals and groups which have criticized Spencer as unscholarly or bigoted are journalists Cathy Young and Stephen Schwartz (journalist), Professor Khaleel Mohammed, and various organizations such as The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. (Reference: Wikipedia)
Here is a repost of the WWW.LOONWATCH.COM website in regards to this vile un-constitutional and un-American hate mongering against Muslims: