August 7, 2013
By Robert Spencer
Here is a particularly egregious manifestation of how “journalists” attempt to manipulate events and frame the general public’s understanding of the news. In a certain sense it is a shame that this article is about me, and I am the one responding to it, since that only obscures the core issues of media bias here: please try to keep in mind that this is not something that happens to me only, but to anyone and everyone who dares to challenge the politically correct establishment, the Leftist ideology that we all must accept on pain of charges of “bigotry,” “racism,” and “hate.” Leftist “journalists” such as Patricia Montemurri have just about succeeded in fooling Americans into thinking that there is something wrong with defending their home and country against a radically intolerant and repressive ideology — this article is just one small example of how it has been done.
It starts with the headline: “anti-Islam.” Not “pro-freedom.” Not even “anti-Sharia.” The implication is that my work is about “hate,” as Patricia Montemurri’s talking points from the editor-in-chief of Reza Aslan’s Aslan Media told her — not about defending the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. Not about defending women and non-Muslims and gays from Sharia-inspired oppression and intimidation. Not about championing Constitutional freedoms. Just about irrationally hating an entire Great World Religion, for some unaccountable reason.
“Catholic radio station invites anti-Islam blogger to speak at EMU,” by Patricia Montemurri for the Detroit Free Press, August 7:
Note again the subtle manipulation of the reader. Patricia Montemurri had 1,000 things she could have called me; she chose “anti-Islam blogger and author.” Not, say, “former FBI and JTTF trainer.”
Not “human rights activist.” Not “pro-freedom activist.” You get the idea.
In writing this, Montemurri implies that “the Norwegian white supremacist” was inspired to white supremacism and murder by me. In reality, Anders Behring Breivik’s “manifesto” cites not just me, but many, many people, including Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, and Thomas Jefferson — who are just three of the many who are never blamed for his murders. Montemurri also doesn’t mention, and probably doesn’t know, since the editor-in-chief of Reza Aslan’s Aslan Media didn’t tell her, that Breivik’s manifesto actually reflects an ideology quite different from mine: so far was he from being a doctrinaire counter-jihadist that he wanted to aid Hamas and ally with jihad groups. Nor does she mention (or know, probably) that Breivik criticized me in his insane “manifesto” for not advocating violence. I am no more responsible for Breivik than the Beatles are for Charles Manson.
And as for the British ban, the fact that Montemurri even mentions it shows how these smears retailed by the editor-in-chief of Reza Aslan’s Aslan Media are self-reinforcing. As a result of smears and defamation from Aslan’s counterparts in Britain, my colleague Pamela Geller and I were banned from entering that country. The Home Office’s letter banning me from entering the country said I was being banned for saying that Islam has a doctrine mandating warfare against unbelievers, which it manifestly and demonstrably does indeed have. A preacher of that doctrine, the Saudi Sheikh Mohammed al-Arifi, was recently admitted into the UK. He has said: “Devotion to Jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer.” Yet I who advocate no violence or hatred of any kind am not allowed in. This is hardly a blot on my record; it is a blot on Britain’s.
Shadid Lewis is set to debate me Saturday. It should be interesting. He will find that however much it may impress Patricia Montemurri, name-calling and ad hominem attacks won’t go as far in debate against actual facts.
Actually Montemurri was given a phone number that is no longer in use, and — as is typical of today’s lazy and ideologically blinkered Leftist “journalists,” made no further attempt. My email address is publicly available on this site, but she didn’t email me until I emailed her this morning to take issue with her saying I couldn’t be reached for comment when she hardly tried. I offered to answer her questions via email at that point. She did not deign to respond. So much for “journalism” in America today. Note that she implies skepticism about my Catholicism, saying only that I identify myself as a Catholic but not going so far as to say that I actually am one, while manifesting no such skepticism toward the defamation that the others she quotes in the article direct toward me. Instead of only noting various bishops who have canceled me, she could have also noted that I was recently called “perhaps the foremost Catholic expert on Islam in our country” in the National Catholic Register. But that wouldn’t have accorded with her agenda.
There is nothing “disrespectful” about telling the truth.
Montemurri doesn’t mention, because the editor-in-chief of Reza Aslan’s Aslan Media didn’t tell her, that the Worcester bishop canceled me at the behest of Abdul Cader Asmal, an open supporter of convicted al-Qaeda jihad terrorist Tarek Mehanna. She doesn’t mention, yet again because she almost certainly wasn’t told, that while the Sacramento bishop caved to smears from (yes) the editor-in-chief of Reza Aslan’s Aslan Media, the diocese of Sacramento had a booth at the conference, which went on as planned with me speaking: obviously they didn’t think it was so terrible that I was there that they couldn’t have a presence at all. Montemurri displays no curiosity whatsoever as to how and why these cancellations happened.
I was not banned from Britain because my “presentations” were “incendiary.” I was banned from Britain for saying that Islam had a doctrine of violence against unbelievers. Muslims who believe in that doctrine are persecuting Christians with increasing ferocity in Nigeria, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Indonesia, and elsewhere today. If “ongoing, cordial dialogue” can’t acknowledge and discuss that and work toward ways to stop it, it is worthless.
Fair enough. It would be nice for someone to have the courage to say that there is nothing wrong with resisting jihad violence and Islamic supremacism, but that may be too much to hope for in today’s politically correct age.
Final observation: why didn’t the Detroit Free Press’s in-house pro-jihad terror stooge, Niraj Warikoo, write this hit piece? Was he tired of my calling him out on his endless cheerleading for jihad terror and Islamic supremacism?