News Ticker >
[ October 22, 2019 ]

Trump blasts Nervous Nancy Pelosi for ‘taking too long’ on Mexico, Canada trade pact

[ October 22, 2019 ]

“Ecumenical” Turkish Islam: Billboards Feature Koranic Verse (5:51) Admonishing Muslims Not To Befriend Jews And...

[ October 22, 2019 ]

Expansive RUSSIA HOAX INVESTIGATION will give Trump ammo to expose “impeachment” lynching

[ October 22, 2019 ]

TRUMP EFFECT: Iran BANNED indefinitely from world judo over racist refusal to face Jews

[ October 22, 2019 ]

CNN: Mexico Has Built Trump’s Wall and Is Paying for It

[ October 22, 2019 ]

Muslims’ DEADLY RIOT kills 4, injures 50 over Facebook post about Mohammad

[ October 22, 2019 ]

CAR RAMMING NORTH CAROLINA: Driver Ibrahim Alshabani ‘intentionally’ runs over, KILLS 79 year-old woman at...

[ October 22, 2019 ]

Report: AG Barr Expands Probe into Russia Investigation Origin,‘Something Significant’ Found

[ October 22, 2019 ]

Crazy Bernie Sanders: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Will Work in My Administration

[ October 22, 2019 ]

Latino businesses see record profits thanks to President Trump

Pipes is Tolerated, Geller is Not

23

This is a perceptive article, showing that sugar-coating harsh realities and pretending that unpleasant facts don’t exist opens doors and gets you accolades — but is it worth it at the price of the truth?

According to the article, Pipes makes two glaringly false assertions. First: “He suggested it is Islamism, a political ideology, that inspires hatred of ‘the other,’
rather than Islam….He emphasized that while Islam has existed since the age of the
prophet Mohammed, Islamism is a recent phenomenon and need not be
considered an authentic expression of Islam.”

Need not be considered an authentic expression of Islam by whom? By Muslims? Yet so many do, all around the world. By non-Muslims? What would that accomplish, since so many Muslims think it is an authentic expression of Islam, except to render us complacent in the face of the jihad threat?

And anyway, is “Islamism” really not an authentic expression of Islam? In fact, political Islam and violent Islam go back to Muhammad, who massacred the Qurayzah tribe and the Jews of Khybar, left oceans of blood in his
wake. In Medina he started waging war against non-Muslims, and he explained to his
followers that they should offer those non-Muslims three choices:

Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah.
Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war.…When you meet
your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If
they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from
doing them any harm. Invite them to accept Islam; if they respond to you,
accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…. If they refuse to
accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [poll-tax on non-Muslims]. If they
agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to
pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)

As Robert Spencer explains, “the choices for unbelievers are thus to convert to Islam; or submit as
inferiors to Islamic rule, paying the tax and accepting the discrimination that
Islamic law mandates for non-Muslims in the Islamic state; or die. Those are
the only choices offered. Islamic law doesn’t envision a situation in which
Muslims live together as equals with non-Muslims without any plan to impose
Sharia upon them now or in the future.”

Spencer also rejects the Islam/Islamism distinction: “…the distinction is artificial and imposed from without. There are
not, in other words, Islamist mosques and non-Islamist mosques,
distinguishable from one another by the sign outside each, like Baptist
and Methodist churches. On the contrary, ‘Islamists’ move among
non-political, non-supremacist Muslims with no difficulty; no Islamic
authorities are putting them out of mosques, or setting up separate
institutions to distinguish themselves from the ‘Islamists.’ Mevlid
Jasarevic [a jihadist in Sarajevo] could and did visit mosques in
Austria, Serbia, and Bosnia without impediment before he started
shooting on Friday; no one stopped him from entering because he was an
‘Islamist.’
And so to say we must work with ordinary Muslims while eschewing
collaboration with Islamists is not precisely a distinction without a
difference, but a distinction that is practically imperceptible and, in
many cases, in fact not there at all.”

And Andrew Bostom adds: “One must ask, ‘What Went Wrong’ with Daniel Pipes who now sprays (Edward) Saidian
charges of ‘essentialism’ at brave Muslim freethinkers like Ayaan Hirsi
Ali and Wafa Sultan, as well as the stalwart Dutch politician Geert
Wilders, for simply rejecting his self-contradictory mantras on ‘Islamism.'”

Even worse, Pipes “said the religion of Islam itself is not inherently hostile to
Jews, and Muslim anti-Semitism scarcely existed before the establishment
of the state of Israel.”

Amazing. Is he unaware of the Koran’s terming the Jews the “worst enemies” of the Muslims (5:82), or saying that Allah cursed them and turned them into apes and pigs (2:62-66; 5:59-60; 7:166)? Where is Pipes on that and so much more Koranic antisemitism? Has he never heard of the genocidal hadith in which Muhammad said that “the last hour would not come unless the
Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them
until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a
stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a
Jew behind me; come and kill him.” (Sahih Muslim 6985)?

Has Pipes never
read Bat Ye’or or Andrew Bostom on Islamic antisemitism, or Sir Martin Gilbert’s history
of the Jews in Muslim lands, In Ishmael’s House? All of them show that Jew-hatred is a constant of Islamic history. Pipes thinks it started with Israel? What about the pogroms conducted by Palestinian Muslims against Palestinian Jews in the early 20th century — the wholesale slaughter of Jews as prescribed and preached by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who lived in Berlin during the war, made broadcasts in Arabic for the Nazis, and raised up an SS division of Bosnian Muslims?

Historian Phillip
Hitti states: “The caliph al-Mutawakkil in 850 and 854 decreed that Christians
and Jews should affix wooden images of devils to their houses, level
their graves even with the ground, wear outer garments of honey color,
i.e. yellow, put two honey-colored patches on the clothes of their
slaves, … and ride only on mules and asses with wooden saddles marked by
two pomegranate-like balls on the cantle.” Andrew Bostom’s work shows much more. 1000 years later, in
1888 a Tunisian Jew lamented a similar situation:

The Jew is prohibited in this country to wear the same
clothes as a Muslim and may not wear a red tarbush. He can be seen to
bow down with his whole body to a Muslim child and permit him the
traditional privilege of striking him in the face, a gesture that can
prove to be of the gravest consequence. Indeed, the present writer has
received such blows. In such matters the offenders act with complete
impunity, for this has been the custom from time immemorial.

In 1291 Isaac ben Samuel, a Palestinian Jew,
said: “In the
eyes of the Muslims, the children of Israel are as open to abuse as an
unprotected field.” The philosopher Maimonides said: “You know, my brethren, that on account of our sins G-d has
cast us into the midst of this people, the nation of Ishmael, who
persecute us severely, and who devise ways to harm us and to debase
us.…No nation has ever done more harm to Israel. None has matched it in
debasing and humiliating us. None has been able to reduce us as they
have.…We have borne their imposed degradation, their lies, and
absurdities, which are beyond human power to bear.”

On
December 30, 1066, four thousand Jews in Granada were killed in a pogrom by Muslim mobs. The Muslim chronicler Abd Allah said that the
mobs “put every Jew in the city to the sword and took vast quantities of
their property.”

Were they enraged because Israel was going to be founded nearly 900 years later?

Pipes is tolerated, Geller is not by Farzana Hassan, Toronto Sun, May 16, 2013

Two renowned Jewish Americans spoke about the issue of Islamic radicalism in the GTA this week.

Both recognize Islamism as a threat to peace and security; both
acknowledge the existence of peace-loving Muslims, who must join hands
with others fighting extremism; both wish to defend Western values.

Yet one speaker is tolerated more than the other.

Pamela Geller, blogger and author, is known for her virulently
anti-Islam views. She was effectively barred from speaking at a
Thornhill synagogue by York Region police.

This was followed by a rebuke from the Toronto Board of Rabbis to the
Jewish Defense League, for hosting Geller at the Zionist Centre in
Toronto. The board was afraid this might exacerbate already tense
relations between Jews and Muslims in the GTA.

Meanwhile, The Muslim Committee Against Anti-Semitism, under the
umbrella of the Canadian Thinkers Forum formed by Tahir Aslam Gora,
invited Daniel Pipes to speak on Wednesday, May 15 on the causes of
anti-Semitism, why it now exists predominantly among Muslims and what
can be done to counter it.

Pipes is the founder and director of the Middle East Forum and an
acclaimed scholar. The Muslim Commitee Against Anti-Semitism is a group
of Muslims newly formed to oppose anti-Semitism.

Pipes takes a conciliatory approach towards the fraying dynamics
between Jewish and Muslim communities. He also appears sanguine about an
Islamic reformation.

At his lecture, he took a sympathetic view of mainstream Muslims by
drawing a distinction between Islam and Islamism. He suggested it is
Islamism, a political ideology, that inspires hatred of “the other,”
rather than Islam.

He said the religion of Islam itself is not inherently hostile to
Jews, and Muslim anti-Semitism scarcely existed before the establishment
of the state of Israel.

He emphasized that while Islam has existed since the age of the
prophet Mohammed, Islamism is a recent phenomenon and need not be
considered an authentic expression of Islam.

To be sure, many Muslims may disagree with his distinction, believing
instead that Islam is an ideology and Islamism its mere execution.

While Pipes is soft-spoken, Geller is fiery and provocative.

Geller criticizes Islam point-blank and makes no distinction between Islam and Islamism.

In her speech, recorded by the website BlazingCatFur, she insisted
jihad is inherently violent and that Islamic terror is a major threat to
Western values, peace and security. Geller does not mince words,
pointing out rampant anti-Semitism among many Muslims.

Pipes and Geller both see Islamic radicalism as a threat, but the
reason Pipes is tolerated and Geller is not may lie primarily in
semantics and tone.

Regrettably, in matters of culture and religion, political
correctness circumscribes the right to freedom of expression. Muslim
practice and precept may be criticized, if it is couched in language
that is neither offensive nor blunt.

The Jewish Board of Rabbis seemed to reprimand Geller for her
language, stating she uses language intended to “shock and ridicule.”
Yet her vehemence may simply reflect the strength of her feelings.

Pipes and Geller are equally aware of the threat of Islamic
extremism. They touch upon the same issues. They stress the importance
of mobilizing peaceful Muslims to defend our Western values, societies
and communities.

The same message certainly needs to be heard in different ways, from fiery speakers no less than from conciliatory ones. 

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute to our ground-breaking work here.


Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Contribute Monthly - Choose One

Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email tips@thegellerreport.com

Pin It on Pinterest