Aisha's Age, "Islamophobic Propaganda" and Tayyab Tanvir's Shattered Faith

This is a quick response to a Facebook note published by Tayyab Tanvir on Saturday, 25 August 2012, titled "Aisha's Age and Islamophobic propaganda"

Slander & Attacking a Strawman

Tayyab Tanvir says:

"Islamophobes always come up with this discussion to degrade Mohammad(PBUH). Ironically enough they always quote an article from WikiIlsam. I have to admit the first time I came across WikiIslam and read the article about Aisha's age, it seemed like everything I believed in shattered. My mind could not accept that my Prophet(PBUH) would force a six year old girl to marry him. So I read few more articles on the website including one about how Quran encourages Muslims to kill non-believers. The author supported his argument with various Quranic verses. The interesting thing I noticed about them was that he intentionally left out important parts of the verses to support his faux argument. This made me realize how the author is manipulating Quranic verses and Hadiths only to spread confusion and degrade Islam."

This is not only an unsupported slandering of critics, but also a strawman argument. He is discussing an article titled "Aisha's Age of Consummation". The article "discusses the DMS (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) of mental disorders and cites sahih hadiths to prove that Muhammad was a pedophile according to clinical definitions."

It does not argue the age of Aisha since mainstream Muslims (Sunni Islam i.e 80-90% of all Muslims) whole-heartedly accept that Aisha consummated her marriage to Prophet Muhammad when she was nine (the other 10-20%, the Shi'ites, say she may have been 9-10). It is only heretical Muslims, those who are not even considered Muslims by most (e.g. Ahmadis and so-called "reformist"), that argue she was an adult.

Taking Credit for Other's Work

Tayyab Tanvir says:

"Few days ago I was engaged in a debate on a facebook page. Admin of the page stated that Muslims can’t carry out a decent conversation and support it with facts but instead they would accuse “open minded” westerns of racism and send out hate mails and death threats. So I spent hours researching for data and hadiths to answer their claims, only to get banned in the end because somehow my comments were getting more likes than theirs."

He presents 10 different arguments against the young age of Aisha as the result of his "hours researching for data and hadiths". 

His friends are apparently impressed by "his" hard work. For example, Aymen Siddiqui says, "I am out of words for the amount of effort and research you have presented. Brilliant job !!!" And Owais Tahir says "I am amazed at the extensive research you have done , not a lot of people pay attention to matters like this . May Allah bless you".

But they are praising the wrong man. None of the claims presented in that page were thought up by Tayyab Tanvir. They are the work of Moiz Amjad, "The Learner".  Tayyab Tanvir is dishonestly taking the credit for someone else's work.

Tayyab Tanvir's Arguments Refuted 

Tayyab Tanvir's arguments, no, I mean Moiz Amjad arguments have all been refuted in an article titled "Refutation to Muslim Apologetics against Aisha's Age of Consummation".

For Muslims who may not trust critics, you can read "Our Mother A'isha's Age At The Time Of Her Marriage to The Prophet", Shaykh Gibril F Haddad's unanswered reply to Moiz Amjad.

Disingenuous & Cowardly Behavior

He complains about allegedly "being banned", but the fact that Tayyab Tanvir has been attacking a strawman, has been taking the credit for others work and has already been refuted, has been pointed out twice by a user named Issy Jones and once by me. And every single time, our comments have been deleted:

Conclusion

It is a fact that every single sahih hadith narration on Aisha's age when she had sex with Muhammad says she was nine-years-old.

So when Tayyab Tanvir claimed "I have to admit the first time I came across WikiIslam and read the article about Aisha's age, it seemed like everything I believed in shattered" he was either lying about Aisha's age making a difference to his faith, or his faith had been shattered but he's too indoctrinated to care.

Either way, this exposes the false protests made by shameless Muslim apologists who will shout "Islamophobe!!!" at anything they perceive as a threat to their missionary work, even if those "threats" simply repeat what the vast majority of the world's Muslims actually believe.

Resources on Aisha's Age

From Critics:

1. A’isha: Mohammed’s Nine-Year Old Wife
2. Aisha's Age of Consummation
3. Refutation to Muslim Apologetics against Aisha's Age of Consummation
4. Responses to Apologetics: Muhammad and Aisha
5. Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Aisha
6. Controversies about the age of Aisha 
7. Aisha the Child Wife of Muhammad
8. Moral Evaluations of the Marriage of the Prophet with Aisha 
9. Muhammad, Aisha, Islam, and Child Brides
10. An Examination of Muhammad's Marriage to a Prepubescent Girl and its Moral Implications
11. Aisha — 9 year-old bride
12. Was Muhammad a Pedophile?
13. Really, really wishing Aisha weren't nine

From Muslims:

1. Our Mother A'isha's Age At The Time Of Her Marriage to The Prophet
2. Child marriage in Islam
3. I would like to marry a woman who is 12 years old, her father and she has also agreed. What is your advise?
4. Ruling on marrying young women
5. Is it acceptable to marry a girl who has not yet started her menses?

Tunisia: Thousands of Muslims Chant "Allahu Akbar", So "OBAMA THE APE" Can Hear Them

This short video is one giant orgy of Muslim intolerance and bigotry. In addition to proclaiming that "Every Muslim is a jihadist" (Islamophobic Muslims, maybe?), and genocidal anti-semitic chants of "Oh Jews, the army of Muhammad is returning", the cleric refers to America's first black President as an ape. I wonder how black Muslims will react to this, if at all.

If the same were to happen in America, the media and politically-driven "civil rights" activists would be (rightly) all over it. In fact, similar incidents involving some right-wing loons have occurred in America (no surprise there really). Even the left-leaning New York Magazine have had their turn. But the major difference between these incidents lay in the fact that they never had thousands of religious cheerleaders on their side, cheerleaders who found absolutely nothing offensive about referring to a black man as an ape, calling all Muslims terrorists, or calling for genocide against Jews. And they weren't completely ignored by the mainstream media.

Transcripts from MEMRI:

The following are excerpts from a rally which aired on the Internet on May 20, 2012. Crowd: 

“Obama, Obama, we are all Osama...” (continuous cheer, the slogan rhymes in Arabic obama, obama, kuluna osama) [...]

Speaker: “Some Tunisians and some Muslims are afraid of the jihadists

We must ask, How come?

Because the enemies have distorted the image of the jihadists, presenting them as the enemies of the Muslims.

We say: no! Every Muslim is a jihadist

Every Muslim is a jihadist [...]

The enemies of Islam want us to be like sheep, to act like women.

They want to deprive us of our will.

They plundered Palestine and other lands and holy places.

They want the jihadists behind bars

Why? So that the holy places will not be liberated?

We are all jihadists, supporting Jerusalem, and elevating the word of Allah. [...]

Let us all cry 'Allah akbar' together, so that Obama the ape can hear us. All together now!

Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Let America hear us!

Say 'Allah Akbar!' Crowd: “Allahu Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "We are coming, We are coming" Crowd: "We are coming, We are coming" Speaker: "We are coming, We are coming" Crowd: "We are coming, We are coming" Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar”

Speaker: "Hear us Obama!

Say 'Allah Akbar!'” Crowd: “Allah Akbar” (Men with covered faces do martial arts on stage in front of the crowd) Crowd: Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the army of Muhammad is returning (Slogan repeats and rhymes: jeisha Muhammad soufa y`aud) (x5) (After several minutes of demonstrating hand to hand combat, the men start demondtrating fighting with wooden swords) Speaker: "We want to convey a clear message one that will reach the heavens." Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Speaker: "Say 'Allah Akbar!'" Crowd: “Allah Akbar” Crowd: "We respond to your call, Oh Allah!" (x3)

Sweden: Muslim Prof. Says it's a Real Shame that Facts Confirm the "Prejudices of Islamophobes"

This is ridiculous. Surely if the facts confirm "the Islamophobes prejudices", then you should no longer refer to them with such a nonsensical label? If, like the BNP, they are using Islam as a cover for their racist views, then call them racists, bigots, xenophobes, or whatever else is applicable. The truth is, facts matter little to those who use this Muslim Brotherhood-created neologism. A neologism specifically created in order to "beat down critics".

From The Local:

Six out of ten mosques in Sweden gave women advice about how to deal with spousal abuse and polygamy that contradicted Swedish law, a media investigation has revealed.

Using hidden cameras and telephone recording equipment, two women posing as abused spouses visited ten of Sweden's largest mosques as part of a report put together by Sveriges Television (SVT) investigative news programme "Uppdrag granskning".

 The women then asked leaders at the mosques for advice about how to address issues such as polygamy, assault and non-consensual sex.

 Six out of the ten mosques visited by the women, who had also claimed that their husbands had multiple wives, told them that they should nevertheless agree to have sex with their husbands even if they didn't want to.

 Six of the mosques also advised the women against reporting spousal abuse to the police. Leaders at another mosque were divided on the issue, while women received vague advice from yet another mosque.

 Only two of the mosques gave the women clear advice directing them to report their abusive husbands to police.

 The women were also told by nine of the ten mosques that men had the right – under certain circumstances – to have more than one wife.

 Only one mosque told the women that men didn't have the right to be married to several women at the same time and that their husbands needed to follow Swedish law.

 The advice, which in many cases advocated violating Swedish laws, came from imams or family counselors at the mosques.

 When "Uppdrag granskning" host Janne Josefsson approached two of the largest mosques featured in the programme to inquire about their official position on matters discussed by the women, the answers he received were totally different than what the women heard.

 The chair of the Islamic Association in Uppsala claimed in the story that people should follow Swedish law.

 When confronted by what the imam at the Uppsala mosque told the women, the Islamic leader explained that the imam had expressed his personal opinion in urging the women to forgive their abusive husbands rather than report them to police.

 The imam with whom the woman met at the mosque in Stockholm defended polygamy and also advised against filing a police report about husbands who beat them.

 He suggested instead that the women try to show their husbands more love.

 "Don't refuse to give him love, because then he might change," said the imam.

 Upon seeing the SVT report, however, the board of the Islamic Association in Stockholm (Islamiska förbundet Stockholm) decided to suspend the imam immediately and launch an internal investigation.

 "This is a clear breach of Swedish law and they commit professional misconduct in their capacities as imams and associations," Mohammad Fazlhashemi, a professor and author of books on Muslim intellectual history, told the TT news agency.

 Fazlhashemi, who also appears in the SVT report, has reviewed a written transcript of the advice given to the women.

 "What these men are saying to the woman violates their human rights. The men demean and insult the women when they say 'you need to tolerate that these men hit you'," said Fazlhashemi.

 He is highly critical of the imams featured in the SVT report for not following Swedish law.

 "Considering the fact that the mosques have received state funding, they have also committed to following Swedish law and the basic principles of democracy," he said.

 Fazlhashemi describes the Muslim leaders featured in the piece as "conservative, letter of the law traditionalists".

 "Now it's time for some housecleaning. They need to weed out the bad seeds," he said.

 Fazlhashemi, who is also a Muslim, expressed concerns that such outdated mosque representatives benefit Muslim-haters and the far-right Sweden Democrats.

"They confirm the negative picture of Muslims. It's a real shame that they confirm of the prejudices that Islamophobes have," he said.

How and Why the Farcical Neologism "Islamophobia" was Created

Well, we already know "Islamophobia" is a ridiculous concept that means we have to class many Muslims as Islamophobes too, but nothing can compare to how the neologism was created. This is an extract from an old but very important piece written by Claire Berlinski.

From Ricochet.com:

[...] Now here's a point you might deeply consider: The neologism "Islamophobia" did not simply emerge ex nihilo. It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia. If that name dimly rings a bell, it should: I've mentioned it before, and it's particularly important because it was co-founded by Anwar Ibrahim--the hero of Moderate Islam who is now trotting around the globe comparing his plight to that of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. "This loathsome term," he writes,

is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.

In another article concerning the many moderate Muslims whose voices have been drowned out by Saudi-financed Muslim Brotherhood front groups, Muhammad describes the strategy behind the word's invention:

In an effort to silence critics of political Islam, advocates needed to come up with terminology that would enable them to portray themselves as victims. Muhammad said he was present when his then-allies, meeting at the offices of the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT) in Northern Virginia years ago, coined the term "Islamophobia."

Muhammad said the Islamists decided to emulate the homosexual activists who used the term "homophobia" to silence critics. He said the group meeting at IIIT saw "Islamophobia" as a way to "beat up their critics."

Really imagine that scene: a bunch of Islamists admiring how astutely the queers--people who in their ideal world would be served with the lash or hanged--had portrayed their critics as mentally disturbed. Brilliant. Let's take a leaf from them and then kill them. The association of anti-Islamism--the noblest form of liberal anti-totalitarianism--with gay-bashing rednecks in the grip of a psychosexual panic was not just one of those linguistic accidents of history, in other words. These guys were sitting there in Virginia and really thinking about the best way to exploit the weaknesses of the Western psyche. They came up with this word--and admit it, it's clever; I challenge you to find a better one if you want to yank the West's chain--and they marketed it with petrodollars, and now it truly does drive public discourse and policy the world over. I was asked when I was recently on a Turkish television news show whether the Tea Party was "Islamophobic." That's what they're hearing here in Turkey, thanks to the IIIT. It's not an indigenous Turkish concept, I assure you.[...]

The "Spot the Islamophobe" Quiz

The aim of the game is simple; read the comments and decide which ones were spoken by Muslims and which ones were spoken by the non-Muslim racist right-wing "Islamophobes". Answers and additional thoughts are at the bottom.

Quotes

1. "There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it."

2. "England is the breeding ground of fundamentalist Muslims. Its social logic is to allow all religions to preach openly. But this is illogic, because none of the other religions preach apocalyptic violence."

3. "Islam – this theology of an immoral Arab – is a dead thing."

4. "Muslim terrorists kill and slaughter not because of what they experience but because of what they believe. The first thing you have to understand is that it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with poverty or lack of education."

5. "Sharia is Islam, to be clear. There is no difference between Islam and Sharia, it's just a name. Democracy is the opposite of Sharia and Islam."

6. "Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact that it was able to show that it could and would fight as well as the Mohammedan aggressor... The civilization of Europe, America and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization"

7. "The Holy war as it is known in Islam is basically an offensive war, and it is the duty of all Muslims of every age, when the needed military power is available"

8. "The Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness."

9. "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant."

10. "You cannot be both secular and a Muslim! You will either be a Muslim, or secular! ... For them to exist together is not a possibility! Therefore, it is not possible for a person who says 'I am a Muslim' to go on and say 'I am secular too.' "

Answers

1. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Muslim) 2. Wole Soyinka ("Islamophobe") 3. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk ("Islamophobe") 4. Tawfik Hamid (Muslim) 5. Fouad Belkacem (Muslim) 6. Theodore Roosevelt ("Islamophobe") 7. Ramadan Buti  (Muslim) 8. Winston Churchill ("Islamophobe") 9. Omar M. Ahmad (Muslim) 10.  Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Muslim) 


Isn't it strange that "moderate" (e.g. Tawfik Hamid, Omar M. Ahmad) and/or well-respected Muslims (e.g. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Ramadan Buti) espouse or agree with the views that "Islamophobes" accuse Islam of being guilty of?

And, as "Islamophobes", we appear to be in good company, considering the fact that universally respected individuals like Wole Soyinka (the first African to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature),  Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (the father of the Turks), Theodore Roosevelt (one of the most respected US presidents of all time), and Sir. Winston Churchill (the greatest Briton of all time) agree with our assessment of Islam... Oh, wait. Were they all racist right-wing "Islamophobes" too?

RationalWiki on the Irrationality of Islamophobia Watch

From RationalWiki (visit the original page for references):

Islamophobia Watch is a silly blog that claims to be "documenting anti Muslim bigotry". Critics of the site allege that it is simply badmouthing anybody who criticises any aspect of the Islamic world. It is apparently run by Bob Pitt, and has a contributor named Martin Sullivan (who some have suggested is a sock puppet operated by Pitt). According to Pitt the blog was set up by Eddie Truman.

One of the blog's frequently targeted Islamophobes is Richard Dawkins, who referred to Islam as an "unmitigated evil" as recently as May of 2011. In 2008, Dawkins complained that British teachers are tolerating creationist views in Muslim pupils. "[T]here are those of us who would argue that paranoid delusions about the impact on educational policy of a minority faith community who comprise less than 3% of the population of the UK are quite accurately categorisable as Islamophobia", said Martin Sullivan.

Islamophobia Watch has been involved in a lengthy spat with another blog, Harry's Place. Harry's Place made a post in 2005 deconstructing Pitt's definition of "Islamophobia", resulting in a squabble between the two, with Pitt focusing largely on Harry's support for the Iraq war. Sullivan later described Harry's Place as "notoriously Islamophobic".

Other people apparently deemed "anti Muslim bigots" by the blog include Bill Maher, anti-burqa feminist Elizabeth Farrelley, Booker prize-winner Ian McEwan, British comedian Ben Elton, Martin Amis, gay website Pink News, Christopher Hitchens, Philip Pullman, Monica Ali, Philip Hensher, Salman Rushdie, and Polly Toynbee.

A favourite tactic used by the blog is pointing out that somebody's criticism of Islam has been supported by the BNP or some other far-right outfit. A stopped clock is right twice a day, Bob.

Brett Lock, a member of the gay rights group OutRage!, took objection to that group being lumped in with the BNP by Islamophobia Watch for its anti-sharia views. He e-mailed Pitt about Islamic laws on homosexuality and was allegedly told that "it's not homosexuality as such that's an offence but the sexual act itself. And you need four independent witnesses for a conviction." "That’s a great comfort, Bob", replied Lock. "Can you imagine if every heterosexual on the planet were forced under pain of death to be celibate? How would that work? It doesn’t even appear to work for those few (like Catholic clergy) who choose to give it a go. Why does Pitt appear to think that gays and lesbians can live under those conditions?"

The Leicester Secularist blog described Islamophobia Watch's contributors as "homophobic and antisemetic".

Peter Tatchell

One of the blog's favourite targets is gay activist Peter Tatchell. In September 2011 Tatchell attended an anti-EDL rally in Tower Hamlets, carrying a placard reading "Gays & Muslims UNITE! Stop the EDL". Tatchell reported that he received criticism from certain left-wing protestors, "some of whom said explicitly that our placards were 'insensitive…provocative…inappropriate…divisive” and that I am “racist…fascist…anti-Muslim.'" Tatchell added that "There was also hostility from a minority of Muslims who were part of the anti-EDL demonstration, including attempts to snatch and rip my placard... I was surrounded several times throughout the day by angry Muslim youths who ordered me: 'You must remove this placard…You can’t walk here with these words…We don’t allow gays in this area…Gays are not permitted here…We don’t have gays in Tower Hamlets.'"

Islamophobia Watch responded to this account by labelling Tatchell's actions as a "predictably divisive and disruptive... publicity stunt by an attention-seeking narcissist" and pointing out that someone from the EDL asked Tatchell to join them. The fact that Tatchell was attending an anti-EDL rally and carrying an anti-EDL sign and is therefore clearly not an EDL supporter was apparently lost in the confusion.

Johann Hari

British journalist Johann Hari criticised Islamophobia Watch for its reference to Peter Tatchell as "pro-Nazi" and its defence of Muslim homophobe Sir Iqbal Sacranie. "If I write a book calling Sacranie a homophobe and claim it was dictated to me by the Archangel Gabriel, will Pitt defend it as my religious view, and damn everyone who disagrees as 'Johann-phobic'?" he asks. "Islamophobia Watch – and the dense chunk of the hard left that adopts a similar approach – is trying to redefine consistent atheism as a form of racism."

Islamophobia Watch put up a rather feeble response to this, clarifying that its identification of Tatchell as "pro-Nazi" was because he called for the Muslim Council of Britain to be excluded from a Unite Against Fascism conference. Er, that's what qualifies as "pro-Nazi" now?

Later, the blog took Hari to task for describing Dutch Labour Party council member Ehsan Jami as "an intelligent, softly-spoken 22-year-old [who] believes there should be no compromise, ever, on the rights of women and gay people and novelists and cartoonists", Sullivan's objection to this statement being that Jami once co-wrote an anti-Islamic article with Geert Wilders. The same post criticises Hari for being friends with Maryam Namazie, whom it identifies as a "nutter" who accused the Muslim Council of Britain of wanting to execute gays.

"They shamefully call Maryam 'a nutter' for opposing Islamic fundamentalist homophobia, when she has witnessed it first hand in Iran", said Hari in an article about the blog's post. "They then smear Eshan as aligned with Geert Wilders, without pointing out he has in fact condemned Wilders' disgraceful calls for the Koran to be banned, saying instead that 'everyone should read it.' They should be deeply ashamed of their attack on these brave ex-Muslims."

The blog has also stated that "Johann Hari has always been one of our favourite Islamophobes", but acknowledged that "to be fair, he does take a stand against the more egregious examples of anti-Muslim bigotry."

Eric Allen Bell: Loonwatch.com and Radical Islam

First some background on the article(s) and the author, Eric Allen Bell:

"In January of 2012 I wrote 3 consecutive articles for the Daily Kos. The first was entitled "Loowatch.com and Radical Islam". Here I pointed out the how Loonwatch only deflects criticism of radical Islam. I was also critical of Islamic theology while noting over and over that most Muslims were peaceful. The comments section of Daily Kos made me feel like I was attending my own funeral. It was like a public stoning. There wasn't much in the way of responding to any of the points laid out in my article but hundreds of comments accusing me of being "right wing" a "bigot" and an "lslamophobe". This was disappointing." (source)

Loonwatch.com and Radical Islam

Let me just come right out by saying that the vast majority of the estimated 1.67 billion Muslims around the world are clearly not terrorists. The newly coined term “Islamophobia” describes an irrational fear of Islam. But for LoonWatch.com any criticism of the Koran or of violent Jihad - even those criticisms that might have some legitimacy to them - even of radical Islam, are branded as Islamophobia and anyone who dares to raise questions about the nearly constant acts of Jihad going on increasingly around the world today is labeled a “Loon” - thus the title of their blog, LoonWatch.com.

It seems that Loonwatch is pretty much exclusively concerned with exposing the perceived enemies of Islam, including a compulsive and obsessive tit for tat over anything that Robert Spencer, of JihadWatch.com had to say. Unlike Pamela Geller or that nut in Florida who was preoccupied with burning the Koran, Spencer, whom I don't see eye to eye with either (I feel he might also be religiously motivated), presents himself in a rather rational, sober and scholarly fashion and I might add that neither he nor the other "Loons" have bombs strapped to them - only words. Something we cannot say for so many, many defenders of Islam.

Anyone can take a short stroll through YouTube and find numerous videos translated into English of Islamic clerics from many parts of the world calling for the death of all Jews, the Islamic takeover of the world, applauding the actions of Islamic terrorists and defending the practice of beating women, forcing young girls to marry grown men and promoting the most radical forms of Sharia (Islamic) Law. Surely Loonwatch.com has noticed this, but they have nothing to say on the subject - only criticism and attacks on anyone who dare suggest that within the Islamic world there might be room for improvement.

Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"

In time I became very disappointed by the deafening silence on the part of Loonwatch.com when it came to speaking out against the seemingly constant acts of Islamic terrorism, women in Islamic countries being stoned to death as a punishment for being raped, female genital mutilation, the rise of forced Islamic law in Libya, Tunisia and the rise of Islamism in Egypt, the many abuses that are so rampant in so much of the Islamic world today. Loonwatch.com, in my opinion, has an obligation to do more than stand by silently as if to give their consent while only focusing on defending "the religion of peace".

After over a year of communication with Loonwatch.com in the making of "Not Welcome" I have come to the realization that this organization is fundamentally a radical Islamic front, covering up for terrorism, spreading distorted information about the reality of rapidly spreading Islamic fundamentalism - through lies of omission.  To tell a half truth is to tell a lie and the lie that Loonwatch.com tells everyday is to cover up the atrocities within Islam and only focus on attacking its critics.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...

I trust that everyone who reads this can think for yourself, but my sense is that if you are affiliated with this site: Loonwatch.com you are perhaps unknowingly supporting a group with terrorist / Islamist sympathies. Think of those Germans who did not stand up against or speak out against Hitler. And note the distinction between being a German, which is of course perfectly fine, and through silence giving ones consent for the atrocities of the Nazi regime, which is quite another thing entirely. We see here a similar scenario more and more with highly vocal Muslim representatives who have much to say about being percecuted wrongly but nothing much to say about Jihad and the violence associated with fundamentalist Islam.

Please note that there is a difference between the belief system called Islam and a person calling themselves a Muslim. I have tolerance for Muslims as I would for any other human being. But Islam as a belief system is another matter.

Obviously I feel strongly that Muslims have the same rights as everyone else to practice their religion in peace. But when an organization goes beyond that, I will speak up. My sense is that my movie "Not Welcome" makes it abundantly clear that I do support religious freedom for all and loath Islamophobia (the irrational fear of Islam). But I will call out anyone I am in contact with if they also have "Islamist" or terrorist sympathies.

In summary, it is clear that Loonwatch.com is in fact something of a terrorist spin control network, lacking basic empathy for human beings who are being victimized daily by the human rights abuses of fundamentalist Islam.

To give some perspective, what if any one of us created a news source whose only purpose was to attack and expose those people who had criticized American foreign policy, for instance, but we were totally unwilling to talk about what violence the American government had done and was doing that is wrong and in our name? Kind of sounds like Fox "News" actually. That is essentially what you have with Loonwatch.com and its relationship to radical Islam. So why would they only defend Allah while never holding the many radical Muslims accountable? Because the Koran commands them to do so - and when you follow the Koran literally like that - even when to do so defies basic empathy for other human beings... well, isn't that what fundamentalism is?

Read more..... 


How & Why Loonwatch.com is a Terrorist Spin Control Network

[...] Loonwatch unconditionally attacks criticism of Islam but they refuse to criticize the many, many Islamic clerics and terrorists who are hurting people in the name of Islam. Should a person have something to say publicly questioning the funneling of monies from Islamic charities to Islamic terrorist networks, Loonwatch is there to call them a “Loon” for even raising the question. That’s quite a clever system – a form of radical Islamic McCarthyism it seems – with the first line of defense being a blogoshere of misinformed infidels who will blurt out the word “Islamophobe” at the slightest mention that within Islam there might be a problem brewing. What a clever design. [...]

First let me make it clear that there is a difference between a Muslim and Islam. One is a human being and the other is a religious doctrine.  No matter how many times I repeat this, there will always be a fair share of people who refuse to comprehend it and will go on the attack mode saying that I am insulting Muslims. Such was the case when I wrote an article entitled “Loonwatch.com and Radical Islam” 

The next day when I received the usual Loonwatch email containing the next round of articles on who they had singled out to be a “Loon” I saw a photograph of my own face blown up with the words “Loon At Large” over it. The article itself ended with a demand that I be silenced and a link to Daily Kos asking people to write in and demand that I be censored.  

My assertion in the article was and is that Loonwatch is protecting Jihadists and terrorists through lies of omission.  Criticism ranged from emails I received saying that “it was about time someone stood up to Loonwatch”, to people who simply disagreed and felt Loonwatch to be a legitimate Islamophobia watchdog site and that my point was a bit of a stretch, to those who immediately took to the blogosphere, parroting all of the talking points of the Loonwatch smear piece, saying that I was “right wing” and a follower of Robert Spencer and a bigot and so on.

So how can it be that I could make a documentary defending the rights of an Islamic community to build a 53,000 square foot mega mosque and then only months later publish an article with so many criticisms of Islam while accusing a major Islamic blog of being a “terrorist spin control network”? Am I as they say, just somebody with a split personality, or a “Loon” or some kind of an attention-seeking bigot? What happened?

What happened is that my investigation into the theology of Islam continued. And I started to notice more and more of a correlation between some of the violent passages in the Koran and the Hadiths and many of the acts of brutality being carried out by radical Muslims in the world – mostly overseas.

Then when I posted some of these news articles, from Al Jazeera and other international news sources on my Facebook wall, lively discussions and sometimes even debates took place concerning the fact that although the Koran very clearly commands violence in a few passages, most Muslims do not take those passages literally. And thank God, or Allah or Zeus or whoever one imagines to be ruling over the world that most Muslims do not follow all of the commandments in the Koran to the letter or take those dark passages literally.

During those debates I was threatened twice. The first time was from a Muslim computer programmer out of Saudi Arabia who told me he was going to destroy me after I said that I thought Mohammed was too violent, had killed too many people to be considered a holy man (Mohammed personally beheaded hundreds of people and is considered the ideal man in Islam).  I did not take this threat too seriously but soon after my website was hit with a denial of service attack. The second threat came from a Muslim man in New York who told me “I will cut off your dick and stuff it down your throat”. This time I not only contacted Facebook but also contacted the FBI.

While all of this was happening I continued to receive newsletter emails from Loonwatch.com every few days. Their content was mostly obsessed with Robert Spencer and his blog called JihadWatch.com so I put myself on that mailing list as well. It was more than just strange to be receiving these two newsletters every week, each with their own bias. Spencer was meticulously pointing out nearly every act of Islamic inspired violence around the world while Loonwatch responded, tit for tat, by calling him a “Loon” over and over. I’m not sure what Spencer’s preoccupation with Jihad is really all about. He seems a little too cozy with the radical Evangelicals to me. That said, when I click on the links in his articles – for instance this one: “I was doing my duty as a Muslim,' says father who handed out leaflets saying gay people should be hanged”  sure enough, Spencer wasn’t making this stuff up. In fact the Daily Mail in the UK did report on several Muslim men handing out fliers demanding that homosexuals be executed by way of hanging for disobeying Islam – in England.

Spencer’s take on this is naturally seen through the lens of his own sense of reality – a reality strongly motivated by his own reasons - which are not entirely clear to me. Loonwatch would have us believe that Spencer hates all Muslims, but that is not the impression I come away with. That Loonwatch hates Robert Spencer will become immediately self evident to anyone who browses their site. And how does Loonwatch report on the many, many Islamic inspired hate crimes in the world today? By waiting for someone to say anything critical about them and then branding that person a “Loon”.

The Holy Land Foundation was the largest Islamic charity in the United States. Headquartered in Richardson, Texas, it was originally known as Occupied Land Fund. In 2007, federal prosecutors brought charges against the organization for funding Hamas and other "Islamic terrorist organizations". Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) was founded in 1987 (The charter exhibits the influence of anti-Jew conspiracy theories throughout, as evidenced by the explicit mention of the "The Protocols of the Elder of Zion,") as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (an organization often credited as being the mother ship for Al Queda, those followers of “the religion of peace” who brought us 9/11). In the 1920s, an Egyptian school teacher, Hassan al-Banna, gathered discontent Muslims to found the Muslim Brotherhood.

According to a former prosecutor with the US Justice Department, John Loftus, “Al-Banna formed this nationalist group called the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Banna was a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and wrote to him frequently.” Loftus adds that Al-Banna was so persistent in his “admiration of the new Nazi Party that in the 1930s Al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood became a secret arm of Nazi Intelligence. With the goal of the Third Reich to develop the Muslim Brotherhood as an army inside Egypt.

For what it’s worth, here is what WikiPedia says about the connection between Hamas and the Council on American Islamic Relations (C.A.I.R.):

“Critics of CAIR, including six members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, have alleged ties between the CAIR founders and Hamas. The founders, Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, had earlier been officers of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), described by a former FBI analyst and US Treasury Department intelligence official as "intimately tied to the most senior Hamas leadership." Both Ahmad and Awad participated in a meeting held in Philadelphia on October 3, 1993, that involved senior leaders of Hamas, the Holy Land Foundation (which was designated in 1995 by Executive Order, and later convicted in court, as an organization that had raised millions of dollars for Hamas) , and the IAP. Based on electronic surveillance of the meeting, the FBI reported that "the participants went to great length and spent much effort hiding their association with the Islamic Resistance Movement [Hamas]." Participants at the meeting discussed forming a "political organization and public relations" body, "whose Islamic hue is not very conspicuous."

CAIR raised suspicions by raising its annual budget of around $3 million (as of 2007) in part through large donations from people and foundations identified with Arab governments.

How does this relate to Loonwatch? Loonwatch works with CAIR by broadcasting CAIR's point of view. They are very consistent on this. Loonwatch is never in disagreement with CAIR. CAIR thanks Loonwatch in their "Hate Report".

Connecting all of these dots is deeply, deeply concerning. Here is the math: Out of the Muslim Brotherhood come a number of terrorist organizations including Al Queda and Hamas. Out of Hamas comes C.A.I.R. and Loonwatch becomes a mirror for anything that C.A.I.R. wants to convey to Americans about how harmless Islam is. Perhaps I am reading this wrong, but it sure does not look right.

Read more..... 

Pious Lies: MuslimWiki's article on WikiIslam

Since the hypocritical webmaster of KnightsWiki, the "unofficial University of Central Florida wiki", endorses MuslimWiki as a “balanced” alternative to the “Islamophobic” WikiIslam, I thought I'd take a closer look at MuslimWiki's article on WikiIslam. The webmaster of KnightsWiki refers to it as a “fairly comprehensive article” focused on criticizing them.

Author(s) and history of the article

Before even dealing with the actual content of the article, there are a few things which I feel the reader should be made aware of.

History of the article

The article about WikiIslam was first created on Wikipedia (25 January 2012‎) by NarSakSasLee, a Wikipedia user who claimed he was of Japanese origin and a follower of Buddhism. It was then deleted within a few days (27 January 2012), with reluctant agreement from its author, due to several Wikipedia users noting that, among other issues, it was biased and misrepresented its sources.

You would think this would be the end of it, but, no, the story continues...

On 26 January 2012, just one day after it was created and one day before it was deleted on Wikipedia, the article made its way to MuslimWiki, that bastion of neutrality championed by KnightsWiki, a site which interestingly follows a Muslim point of view which they refer to as Pislam (I'm not kidding or trying to be offensive, they really do call it Pislam). The MuslimWiki user who “found” it on Wikipedia goes by the name of IslamicWarrior.

Author(s)

Taking a look at their current user pages and contribution histories, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that NarSakSasLee, the Wikipedia user who claimed he was of Japanese origin and a Buddhist, and IslamicWarrior, the MuslimWiki user who appears to be of Pakistani origin, are actually one in the same.

In addition to the extremely short window of time he had to “find” NarSakSasLee's article, other evidences that suggest they are one in the same include:

1. IslamicWarrior links to several articles he “copied” from Wikipedia and consequently admits to authoring the WikiIslam article by having it linked under a separate section titled “Created Articles”.

2. "Hilal-i-Jur'at" is an article by NarSakSasLee which, coincidently, is linked on both of their user pages.

3. IslamicWarrior wrote an article titled “Is Islam the fastest growing religion?”. If you look at NarSakSasLee's Wikipedia user contributions, you will notice it is actually text taken from NarSakSasLee's edits on the Wikipedia article “Claims to be the fastest-growing religion”.

4. If you look at their edit history, up until now, when IslamicWarrior edits MuslimWiki, NarSakSasLee takes a break from editing Wikipedia, and vice versa.

5. NarSakSasLee, the “Japanese” user, almost exclusively edits and creates Wikipedia articles associated with Islam and Muslims, including an article in his sandbox about British Pakistanis, whilst IslamicWarrior also seems to show an interest in Japan with his edits on Muslimwiki, he even links to the “Islam in Japan” article.

6. Strangely for someone who claims he is a non-Muslim of Japanese origin, NarSakSasLee's edits on Wikipedia articles mirror the infamous Muslim editor, Jagged 85, by consistently focusing on representing Islam in the most positive light possible whilst representing other faiths (Christianity & Hinduism) in the most negative light.

Take a look at all of his edits on “Claims to be the fastest-growing religion” or “Urine therapy”, where he tries his best to make both Hindus and Christians look like backward piss-drinkers, whilst putting undue weight on a Western Muslim organisation to make it look like Islam is against the practice. Ironically, drinking a certain desert animal's urine is unanimously accepted as halal by mainstream Islam and a quick Google search confirms that it is endorsed by Muslims all over the net as one of Islam's “scientific miracles”, but you would never know this by reading the Wikipedia article that he has butchered with his “Pislam” point of view.

(Update: NarSakSasLee has another user account named ChainedButFree)

Some of the many problems with MuslimWiki's article

Extreme bias & logical fallacies

1. Extreme bias

Before delving into specific problems, you can see straight away with statements such as, “Wikiislam's main purpose of existence is to paint Islam and Muslims stereotypically and negatively”, “[WikiIslam is] grossly mis-representative of Muslims”, and with claims that WikiIslam somehow “disguises itself”, that the MuslimWiki article is extremely biased against WikiIslam. In fact, it has absolutely nothing positive to say about the site.

Partial screen capture of MuslimWiki's "unbiased" and "balanced" entry for WikiIslam

This leads me to wonder how the webmaster of KnightsWiki could possibly claim he wants “to make sure that the content is fair” and that “one of the best offerings of a wiki is the ability to present both sides of an argument”, and then go on to endorsing MuslimWiki and its article about WikiIslam as “a balanced view”.

Did he even read the same article that I am reading? How could someone who is not a Muslim himself be so severely blinded by his pro-Islam bias?

2. Logical fallacies

Conveniently ignoring the fact that WikiIslam's readership is primarily Muslims, ex-Muslims, and non-Muslims living in Eastern countries and that it is even linked to by RichardDawkins.net (where it states WikiIslam is “a work in progress for factual information critical of Islam”), the MuslimWiki article also claims “Most notably the website has been referenced by Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians as well as neo-conservative American authors in books that demonise religions other than Christianity and Judaism”.

This is clearly an attempt at using the 'Guilt by association' ad hominem fallacy. i.e. “Crazy fundies reference WikiIslam, so WikiIslam is written by crazy fundies!!!!”.

As noted by Wikipedia editors on the deleted “WikiIslam Talk” page, there is absolutely nothing notable about receiving trivial mentions in obscure self-published books, and there is no reference provided for the claim that they are written by “Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians as well as neo-conservative American authors” or that they “demonise religions other than Christianity and Judaism”. The language chosen to describe the authors is being used because of their negative connotations.

Even if WikiIslam was referenced by the “Evangelical bogeymen”, what exactly is the problem with that? Is WikiIslam supposed to censor information? Should blisteringly effective critics like Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens be silenced to avoid being quoted by “neo-cons”?

Misrepresenting sources & blatant lies

1. The MuslimWiki article claims “It has been reported by several news sources including the Associated Press as being a website that shows a 'one sided view of Islam' to make 'Muslims look backward and stupid' whilst disguising itself as a website that solely "criticises" Islam.”

This is a blatant lie that was pointed out to him on Wikipedia's “WikiIslam Talk” page.

The article provided as a reference was from a Muslim site named “Suaramedia”. Just by reading its biased title (“WikiIslam, Encyclopedia of Islam under the pretext Wrong!”) and style of writing, it becomes painfully obvious that this is not an AP article. Also worth noting is the fact that AP articles propagate widely; were it an AP article, we'd expect to see it popping up in other news sources, but this is not the case. Simply putting (AP) at the beginning of an article does not make it an Associated Press article.

In addition to these problems, note how they claim “It has been reported by several news sources”, but only provide the one biased reference to a “news” article. To make their claim of news “sources” appear true, they later mention criticism of Wikislam by “Suaramedia, a news organisation based in Indonesia”. What they fail to mention is that the Suaramedia article and the “Associated Press” article are one in the same (apparently it doesn't bother them that providing the 1 link for both articles make their deceit obvious). So here they are making one set of complaints from a biased Muslim site named “Suaramedia” appear as if they were made by two separate, and presumably unbiased, “news organisations”

2. The MuslimWiki article claims “The website has been criticised heavily for using Islamophobic sources, and using writings from Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller as notable sources to make claims about Islam ranging from Islamic history to Islamic belief systems.[1] The website has been banned in Saudi Arabia citing these reasons specifically.”

This is 3 blatant lies in 1 that were, in part, pointed out to him on MuslimWiki's “WikiIslam Talk” page before he blanked it without discussion.

For the first lie;

The MuslimWiki article references a paper by Göran Larsson, which was presented at a conference in Sweden on December 2006, as the source for its claim about Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller. Nowhere in the paper does Göran Larsson make this claim. You can even confirm this for yourself by reading the reference MuslimWiki provide. Larsson's paper is also used in other parts of the article to make further false claims (I will deal with those later in this post).

For the second lie;

The imaginative author simply made up the claim about Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller being used on WikiIslam. Again, you can confirm this for yourself by going onto WikiIslam and checking their completed articles (i.e. ones which are not visibly labelled as needing improvements or awaiting review) for any claims made about Islam that use Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller as a source.

Here are some examples;

*List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad: This article cites 130 different sources. From a quick look, I can gather that every single citation has a pro-Islamic and/or scholarly source. Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are nowhere in sight. Maybe they were too busy at a pro-Zionist convention to lend the editors at WikiIslam a hand? Who knows.

*Questions to Ask a Muslim: This article cites 190 different sources. Again, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are nowhere in sight.

*72 Virgins: This article cites 53 different sources. Unless Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller are one of the virgins, this article too is free from their nefarious pro-Zionist agenda and influence (maybe ol' Bob was busy forging some of the authentic Islamic sources WikiIslam used to prove the 72 virgins “myth”?).

Sure, there may be some pages (out of the 2,316 articles) that need improvement, but to claim that they base their criticism of Islamic history and doctrines off the writings of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller is a complete lie. 

For the third lie;

Who told them WikiIslam was banned in Saudi Arabia because of its “use of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller as sources”? Larsson's paper does not say this, and according to SA, the site was banned for what they term as “pornography”. This is either a codeword for material that critiques Islam, or the Saudi people have some very strange and unique sexual fetishes.

And just in case you're wondering; no, there does not appear to be anything that could be classed, by non-Muslims at least, as “pornographic”.

3. The MuslimWiki article claims “The website does not allow Muslims to contribute to the wiki as stated in the FAQ section by the owner of the website”.

This is another blatant lie that was pointed out to him on Wikipedia's “WikiIslam Talk” page.

If you look at the page history for WikiIslam's FAQ during January 2012 (when the MuslimWiki article was created) it clearly says “Unlike the thousands of pro-Islamic sites on the net which are never labeled as hate sites, we welcome Muslims to edit the site and express an alternate point of view.”

True to their word, there are plenty of pro-Islamic articles available at WikiIslam. They have in fact been accepting pro-Islamic submissions since December 2008 (an article named “Barrier of seas”) and one of the most trusted editors over there was a Muslim. Even from the beginning, WikiIslam has (and still does) offer a link on its FAQ to MuslimWiki for Muslim editors who may prefer to edit a site that only allows biased pro-Islam material. How much fairer/charitable can a critics site be?  And how much more hypocritical can a pro-Islamic site that does not allow opposing views be to criticize another site for allegedly doing the same thing they do?

4. The MuslimWiki article claims “unlike Wikipedia, access to editing articles proves very difficult for the public.[2][1] Each edit is checked by "special contributors" or "reviewers" who can approve or disapprove of the edits.[1] According to the statistics provided by WikiIslam itself out of 1,692 registered users, only 2 have these "reviewer" privileges suggesting that the website is heavily censored.”

This is very inaccurate, and dishonestly conceals the reasons behind some of WikiIslam's policies.   They are also misrepresenting sources once again by using Larsson's 2006-2007 paper to back up something that occurred years later.

All pages on WikiIslam are under "Pending-changes protection" (since very late in December 2011), meaning that they are open for editing, even to IP editors, but changes only become visible to readers once they have been reviewed by a user with the appropriate access. This is nothing unusual for a wiki. In fact all the pages on the German Wikipedia are also under Pending-changes protection . When the MuslimWiki article was created (January 2012) "Pending-changes protection" had only just been implemented there. MuslimWiki, rather disingenuously, states “out of 1,692 registered users, only 2 have these 'reviewer' privileges” in order to shock its readers. The truth is, yes, there are over a thousand registered users, but only a handful are active editors and a lot of the content is provided by what they call “contributors” who send material in via email rather than actually edit the site with a user account. Currently, almost all active users (a lot more than 2) have “reviewer privileges”.

The reason why "Pending-changes protection" became necessary was because WikiIslam is constantly vandalised by Muslims and its non-Muslim editors have openly received (homophobic) death-threats (by IP users none-the-less). In addition to that, before the “Pending-changes protection” was added, Muslims often complained about how “anyone” could insert false information. They would attempt to use the logical fallacy known as “poisoning the well”, by finding a “mistake” and then imploring others not to trust the site. From the WikiIslam FAQ:

“Someone found mistakes in one of your articles. How can I trust the rest of the site?

WikiIslam hosts 2,316 articles written by various users. Anyone who claims they have found mistakes in one of our articles and therefore the rest of our site should be dismissed, is committing the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. Also note that essays do not necessarily reflect the views of WikiIslam. We are receptive to criticism and appreciate the input of our readers because it only results in improving our site. So if you notice any errors please let us know ”

Some wikis clearly need more moderation than other, especially if the wiki in question is focused on a topic as controversial as Islam, or when one simple mistake can and will be used to “discredit” the entire site.

Now that this “anyone could insert false information” complaint has been remedied by WikiIslam, the same group of people (i.e. Muslims) start complaining about “censorship”.

You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.

5. The MuslimWiki article claims “In September 2006, Faith Freedom International (FFI)… launched WikiIslam […] WikiIslam denies this fervently”

This is a lie.

Yes, Faith Freedom International launched WikiIslam, but this is not what any editor at WikiIslam has ever denied, fervently or otherwise (if you look at WikiIslam's “Site News” page, they quite clearly mention in 2007 of being hosted on the FFI server). What they do deny, however, is the false claim that they still remain a part of FFI. The “About” page explains the facts:

"WikiIslam was created on October 27, 2005, in collaboration with Ali Sina and Faith Freedom International. The site was in a testing phase for about a year and on September 4, 2006, it was opened to the public. In September 2007, the FFI server was hacked and was down for almost a month, and due to server problems, editing was disabled at WikiIslam for almost a year. In August 2008, the site was moved out of FFI's server and since then it has been operating independently, remaining unaffiliated with or owned by any organization."

Ali Sina is a very notable former Muslim and has written a lot of critical material in regards to Muhammad and Islam. Whilst his no-nonsense approach to criticism is very powerful, intimidating enough to have Zakir Naik ducking for cover, he has also said things which have offended people (some of his views are certainly not shared with mine). This is clearly another fallacious attempt by MuslimWiki to make people dismiss the site without even reading its fully referenced content, and, judging by the amount of text and screenshots used, they mistakenly thought it was some sort of “smoking gun” against the site to associate it with him.

6. The MuslimWiki article claims “Professor Göran Larsson Ph.D, and Senior Lecturer of religious studies at the Department of Literature, History of Ideas and Religion at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, an expert on Islam and Muslims in Europe.”

Nowhere in the reference given does it state that Larsson is an “expert on Islam and Muslims in Europe”. Even if he were an “expert”, how does that effect WikiIslam's criticism of mainstream Islamic doctrines and Islamic pseudo science? Does Larsson provide a response to WikiIslam's “Lesser vs Greater Jihad” article or its numerous articles refuting laughable claims of science in the Qur'an? No, he does not provide any of this. What is being attempted here is known as an “appeal to authority.”

7. The MuslimWiki article claims (below a screenshot) “A screenshot of Wikiislam "Policies and Guidelines" page addressing that Muslims are not allowed to edit articles. This message has appeared several times before but is sometimes removed.[1]”

There are several problems with this section:

The first problem;

You can clearly see in the screenshot that the page states WikiIslam has temporarily suspended accepting pro-Islam articles (after a full 3 years -2009 to 2011- of accepting them). Thus refuting the claims, “Muslims are not allowed to edit articles” and WikiIslam “does not allow Muslims to contribute to it according to its own policy”. If it was a WikiIslam policy to not allow pro-Islamic content, then there would be no need to put a message there notifying its Muslim editors. Additionally, if it was a WikiIslam policy to not allow pro-Islamic content, there should be no pro-Islamic pages written by Muslims and hosted on the site. However there are plenty of pro-Islamic articles available there which can be read by anyone.

You've probably already guessed that the reason for this temporary change was mainly due to the behaviour of WikiIslam's Muslim editors. WikiIslam's P&G page explains:

“Due to constant vandalism, disruptive editing, non-compliance with guidelines and a lack of time, we are currently not accepting pro-Islamic submissions. This change is only temporary, and our present list of pro-Islamic articles can still be viewed here. For debates and general discussions about Islam, please visit the FFI forum.”

The second problem;

The claim that “This message has appeared several times before but is sometimes removed” is not supported by the page history. To be blunt; it's another blatant lie from the imaginative minds of MuslimWiki's authors.

The third problem;

All of this is referenced to Larsson's paper, something which does not support any of the claims made. Therefore, once again, the author is caught misrepresenting sources and blatantly lying.

Miscellaneous problems, absurdities & more lies

1. The MuslimWiki article quotes the biased Suaramedia article claiming “at a glance this website is a complete reference source for Muslims, but when viewed closely, is a community site that collects material negative and critical of Islam”

This is absolute rubbish. In another section they also use the same site as a reference to back up the claim that WikiIslam somehow “disguises itself” to fool readers. The truth is WikiIslam makes it abundantly clear in their 'About' page, FAQ page and Google description that they are a website critical of Islam. If Muslims are too stupid to notice this, the confusion can hardly be blamed on WikiIslam.

2. The MuslimWiki article claims the WikiIslam “website is located in Washington DC, USA (although several WHOIS look ups have shown it is based in Houston, Texas)”

This location refers to the hosting server of the website. There are millions of servers that have millions of hosting accounts and the server location is not used as the "website location".

3. The MuslimWiki article claims “It has been reported by several news sources including the Associated Press as being a website that shows a "one sided view of Islam" to make "Muslims look backward and stupid" whilst disguising itself as a website that solely "criticises" Islam.[2] A 67 page report backed by several European research organisations was presented to EUROFOR and confirmed this trend in 2007.[1]”

I'm no rocket scientist, but even I know that a paper written only 3 months after WikiIslam was launched in 2006, cannot “confirm” any trend reported by a biased Muslim site (not AP like it is stated) in a poorly written article in June 2011. Is it possible Larsson has discovered the secret to time travel? If he has, then he's keeping the discovery to himself.

In Closing

I apologise for the excessive length of this post, but even now I'm sure there is plenty of points that I have missed. If the amount of misinformation and lies spouted by some religious Muslims shock you, then be aware that Muhammad himself allowed Muslims to lie and murder in order to silence critics of Islam. Once you learn this inconvenient fact, the religious justification behind the lowly and often murderous actions of some pious Muslims in reaction to critics (Satanic verses, cartoons, Qur'an burnings, etc) ceases to remain a mystery.

What is truly baffling is how an educated non-Muslim running an unofficial university wiki could possibly endorse this tripe as “balanced”.

Update: Linking to MuslimWiki Banned?

Looks like NarSakSasLee has been busy. He has updated MuslimWiki's article to include criticism from other bloggers (some of which, as in the case of "KnightsWiki", appear to have been canvased for this very purpose).

They now have an "External link" with the text "An atheists experience with WikiIslam.net". The atheist MuslimWiki are referring to is Doubting Marcus. He made a post critical of WikiIslam on July 5, 2011, but what MuslimWiki convenient fails to tell you is that Marcus publicly apologized to the editors of WikiIslam and humbly retracted his criticism of the site in a post made by him on December 17, 2011. (read more here).

The "KnightsWiki" webmaster originally contacted the owner of WikiIslam for assistance, assistance which the owner generously provided. But almost immediately, the KnightsWiki webmaster proceeded to attempt vandalism on WikiIslam and then, just as swiftly, made a lengthy post on his blog criticizing the site. There are only two posts in total on his blog and the wiki has been inactive for months. His unashamedly hypocritical, inaccurate, biased, and agenda-driven post has been refuted and thoroughly exposed for the rubbish that it is (read more here & an update here).

Qãhırıï is an African-American Muslim convert who, according to his Facebook postings, apparently believes he has "refuted WikiIslam". NarSakSasLee has certainly contacted him because he has now updated his own post to include links to MuslimWiki, Doubting Marcus, and KnightsWiki (which he lies about, claiming it was written by "staff of the University of Central Florida"). He does all this to "prove" his critique of Islam is not "based on my status as a Muslim." His reply, which only proves what a complete ignoramus he is (someone who doesn't even understand the meaning of "essay" or "unofficial") has also  been refuted and thoroughly exposed for the rubbish that it is (read more here).

NarSakSasLee, who created the original article on Wikipedia and then went on to attempt recruiting the infamous Jagged 85, has clearly declared "jihad" on WikiIslam, a site which apparently must have shook his iman (faith) tremendously for him to be obsessing over it in such a way. In his update, the MuslimWiki article has a section titled, "Linking to MuslimWiki Banned". Most of this has been dealt with in my reply to the hypocritical KnightsWiki webmaster, but I will expand on that here.

MuslimWiki is an obscure site. On a scale of 1 to 10 in popularity, it would score a zero. In fact it's probably more obscure, non-notable and has less traffic than the many obscure pro-Islam blogs they use in an attempt to smear its perceived "competition" (I use inverted commas because, frankly, they're not in the same league). WikiIslam's Alexa ranking fluctuates but remains constantly above 200,000. When NarSakSasLee wrote his tripe, WikiIslam was ranked 133,415. Conversely, MuslimWiki currently isn't even ranked in the top 7 million.

Why would WikiIslam link to such a sh**ty site on their main article? Why would the owner of the site even care about what such an obscure site says about WikiIslam? If he cared about that, then he'd also have to care about every single obscure blog opened up by Tom, Dick and Harry. MuslimWiki is not worthy of having its existence recognized by such a well-known site as WikiIslam. Hence, it is left for me to deal with on this blog. It simply doesn't deserve anything more.

This is just another sad and pathetic attempt by a sad and pathetic individual to goad WikiIslam into providing them some much needed traffic by engaging them in a slanging match. This is hardly anything new for incompetent Muslim apologists who love to ride off the popularity of sites critical of Islam (Answering Christianity and Faithfreedom.com come to mind). Believe me, if and when MuslimWiki becomes popular, MuslimWiki will get its own article on WikiIslam, and that article will not be full of lies and fantasies made up in the mind of its editors.

In short; WikiIslam may be notable enough in order for MuslimWiki to launch a dishonest spear-campaign against it, but MuslimWiki is certainly not notable enough for WikiIslam to even acknowledge. Beggars can't be choosers, so MuslimWiki should be gracious for the fact that WikiIslam generously link to such an obscure and insignificant site on their FAQ as an alternative.

Update: Pro-WikiIslam Muslim Opinions Silenced

There is a reason why people refer to pro-Islamic hackers as "Internet Jihadists". These  hackers are the Taliban of the Internet. Like their real life counterparts, they "kill" their critics and force their beliefs onto others (all of the Islamically-hacked Christian and Hindu sites that I have come across, have had their content replaced with verses from the Qur'an and a "call" to embrace Islam).

It appears that NarSakSasLee/IslamicWarrior is up to his old underhanded tricks again. WikiIslam's webmaster has notified me that a couple of Muslims who had expressed positive views of the site have contacted him and have removed the related statements. I suppose having a student at Umm al-Qura University (Mecca, Saudi Arabia) say, "I usually wouldn't endorse a site like this, but in this case all of the sources were referenced in great detail", doesn't serve NarSakSasLee's biased and dishonest agenda.

Although there is no proof to link the recent failed attempt at a DDoS attack on WikiIslam to NarSakSasLee/IslamicWarrior, his other actions certainly merit him the title of "Internet Jihadist" or maybe "Internet Islamist". Silencing opinions that contradict his own and making sure fellow Muslims tow the party line.