Table of Contents                             - A Short Course                                   

Previous Page

Next Page


  1. Robert Spencer is an expert on Islamic law, a human rights activist, and very informative case study because he is probably more widely smeared than anyone as an Islamophobe™ by many well known Experts™ (25 examples here) who will not quote exactly what he says that is false or debate their claims about Islam with him. Nor is he invited to prestigious academic conferences on whether Islamic law is compatible with pluralistic democracy & human rights. For example in 2008 at Georgetown U. Is There a Role for Shari'ah in Modern States?, celebrated Scholars™ presented unanimous optimistic views but were carefully screened to prevent anyone like Spencer from speaking about institutionalized human rights abuses under Islamic law. Even some leading Conservatives™ ban him from CPAC conferences. It must be either because what they say is true, that he is not worth dignifying with a platform because he is a fear monger who distorts the facts with a kind of bigoted hatred that can incite people like Anders Breivik to violence - or the academic community that is excluding him would rather not talk about his facts because they refute their claims. Evidently it’s the latter, and don’t miss how revealing that is about how deep this deception runs that virtually all Islamic studies departments in America have been teaching a counterfactual, sterilized version of Islam for over 40 years that is not taught at Al-Azhar or any other leading Islamic university, in complete denial of an entire body of work readily available in English about what is taught there. That would mean what Spencer says here is true:

  1. It's ironic: ... critics sometimes point to my working outside of academia as if it were some indication that what I say isn't true. But in reality, it's the universities that are bought and paid for by Islamic supremacist interests. The only honest work on Islam and jihad is taking place almost completely outside of academia these days.”

  1. While examining Islam critically is forbidden in many Muslim countries, it doesn’t deserve special protection in the U.S. where Muslims make up less than 1% of the population than any other religion. To the contrary, there is enough controversy and confusion about it today that it deserves a closer look even if the ridiculous notion is true that peaceful tolerant Muslims are more sensitive to insults than other human beings to the point where reporting on the beliefs of other Muslims they claim to strongly disagree with is so offensive to them it will make them flip sides because they think I am talking about them. I am obviously not talking about them any more than headlines in the mid 20th century like ‘White supremacists lynch black man’ were talking about me or any other white people I knew, and it never occurred to me to be offended enough to join the KKK - that would have been ridiculous.

The term Islamophobia™ is used to describe an imaginary problem, yet is treated at major international conferences as more of a threat to world peace than Islamic terrorism. Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan says it should be recognized as a crime against humanity. In reality, a 2014 PEW study reported that Christians are the world’s most oppressed religious group, and instead of widespread Islamophobia™, non-Muslims around the world are bending over backwards to accommodate Muslims. But cleverly combined with Main Stream Media (MSM) hype over falsely reported hate crime statistics and hate crime hoaxes, Islamophobia™ propaganda has created a fake victim status helping Muslims (for example in Switzerland or the president of NY CAIR) to claim anti-Muslim rhetoric today is as bad as Nazi rhetoric was about Jews when in fact it’s the opposite - the many examples you can find are Islamic supremacist and genocidal rhetoric from influential Muslims. A huge library of video evidence for this comes from the Arab MSM and is translated into English and archived by MEMRITV and PMW. Also here. Nothing even close to what you see there exists in Western MSM, governments, universities, religious groups, or so called Islamophobic™ websites about Muslims, and if you think it does it’s because you didn’t go to the examples just given. A former Imam of an American mosque wrote:

  1. This sense of victimization has now reached a point - especially given the consistent rhetoric of groups like CAIR - that many rank-and-file Muslims now genuinely believe that they are a persecuted and oppressed group.”

This perceived victim status makes many non-Muslims tip toe on eggshells, willing to make exceptions for Muslim behavior or demands they wouldn’t normally make for other religions. I mean if there really was widespread irrational fear of Muslims that caused people to be prejudiced and hateful, what decent person would want to make any poor helpless victim’s life any more difficult than it has to be, and might even be willing to bend a few rules to accommodate them? From that perspective each case might seem like only granting a harmless isolated privilege - until you realize MB groups like CAIR are behind most of them, and are also pushing for other kinds of privileges anywhere they can, deceptively, often using bully tactics. And sometimes the privilege is not harmless and supersedes U.S. State law like in this New Jersey case where a Moroccan Muslim man raped and repeatedly abused his wife, yet the judge ruled that even though domestic violence had occurred,

  1. “the defendant lacked the requisite intent to commit sexual assault and criminal contact based upon his religion”

and would not even issue a restraining order. Why do CAIR and the MSM scream Islamophobia™ when non-Muslims mention that Islamic law (sharia) permits beating women, but didn’t jump all over this defense attorney for claiming such a thing, and the judge for agreeing? These are some of the many ways Islamic law and mores are being introduced into the U.S. deceptively, bit by bit, legally, with few noticing or reporting it. These non-violent deceptive tactics are known collectively as stealth jihad and to win concessions it dovetails well with the threat of a major terrorist attack from the Tiny Minority of Extremists™ that nobody wants to piss off either. Like good cop bad cop you want to reach out to one, but who are we reaching out to? Terrorism™ is an ancient tactic, and the widespread belief it is the name of an enemy is an intentional distraction from the war of ideas the stealth jihad is waging that the non-Muslim world in general is largely unaware of or refuses to name, much less oppose. Both jihads share the same ideology of Islamic supremacism.

The combined effort is having great success. Here is a roundup of the gains just in 2013. It’s created an atmosphere of intimidation and fear in Western countries where journalists, cartoonists, film makers, and politicians have been threatened and murdered for any perceived insult, including jokes, cartoons, a spoof Youtube clip, or quoting the Koran or theologians. Survivor of attempted murder and others are often blamed by the MSM and politicians. Some just lose their careers because of their Racism™. Now worldwide deadly Muslim rioting is considered so predictable, even over false rumors and accidents, that many influential orgs & people want to criminalize free speech about Islam worldwide and force all non-Muslims to live under Islamic blasphemy laws - even in the U.S. where less than 1% of the population is Muslim, and many of them are not even offended by these things. The Egyptian court passed death sentences in absentia for 8 people living in the U.S. involved in making the silly Mohammad film trailer the Obama administration claimed was responsible for the Bengazi attack, and as of 11/2013 only the film maker was arrested, no jihadists. Carnegie Scholar™ Sarah Chayes argues in favor of restricting speech in the U.S. if it offends people who make credible threats to murder and riot in their own countries oceans away:

  1. “U.S. law makes a distinction between speech that is simply offensive and speech that is deliberately tailored to put lives and property at immediate risk”.

But the legal distinction Chayes was referring to was formulated in response to the Ku Klux Klan’s advocacy of violence, and so did not apply to the Muhammad movie filmmakers, who called for no violence from anyone. The Wall Street Journal said the Klan

  1. “advocated violence on the part of their own supporters in order to promote their cause of racial supremacy. By contrast, the filmmakers provoked a violent reaction from the other side. To prosecute them would be analogous to punishing civil rights activists for inciting white supremacists to commit violent or lawless acts.”

If you think something like this kind of restriction of free speech could never happen in the U.S. consider that in December 2011 the UN Human Rights Council adopted with strong U.S. support Resolution 16/18 committing member nations to adopt "measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief." Also with support from Secretary of State Clinton, the OIC (that’s 56 countries + Palestinian Territories, and the largest voting bloc at the UN representing the world Islamic community) is pushing to criminalize “defamation of religion” worldwide, with prosecutions and convictions already happening in many Western countries that may surprise you. Since no one is trying to criminalize joking about or criticizing any other religion,  what they mean is “defamation of Islam” and an Obama DOJ official refused to rule out the idea when asked. But who decides what is incitement and defamation - anything the Tiny Minority of Extremists™ riot about? Should the Swiss change their flag? Will false rumors and accidents be prosecuted? After the Bengazi attack Obama said at the UN “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”.

This is surreal in light of how MEMRITV has saturating levels of video evidence every day of institutionalized Islamic hate speech about non-Muslims. The difference is no one is offended enough to murder and riot about it. It’s free hate speech for Muslims but now many think not for non-Muslims who invented the idea. Can you imagine the situation exactly reversed - free hate speech for non-Muslims in USA about Muslims, but fines, imprisonment, or death for any Muslim who jokes about or criticizes non-Muslims, even in their own countries across oceans that are 99% Muslim? Only a great deception could convince so many educated people to buy into this nonsense. 

Islam’s hostility to the entire non-Muslim world is not motivated by poverty, poor education, or local grievances. Study after study shows the opposite. Here are 22 senior Muslim Brotherhood (MB) leaders, 14 of them with Ph.D’s, 1 Cardiothoracic surgeon, 1 Chief of Neurology, a Swiss banker, and an economist. Here are 27 more educated U.S. MB operatives named in a 2013 Egyptian newspaper investigative report.

Voltaire, 18th century, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

Forward To The Islamic State