Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

Islamophobia or Reality?

A conservative activist and a liberal Tablet contributor debate whether the ‘Ground Zero mosque’ poses a threat to the United States

Print Email
Protesters rally in favor of the proposed Park51 Islamic center at the lower Manhattan site last weekend. (Chris Hondros/Getty Images)
Related Content

The New Anti-Semitism

Recent attacks on Islam in the United States echo old slurs against Jews

When Daniel Luban published an essay in Tablet Magazine last week finding resonances between what he called Islamophobic opposition to the Park51 Islamic center and past anti-Semitism, one comment on the piece jumped out at us. “This article is in serious denial,” began a brief, angry response from David Horowitz, the conservative intellectual and activist and the author, most recently, of A Cracking of the Heart, a book about his daughter. We invited Horowitz and Luban to extend their debate about Luban’s theory. Here is their exchange.

MARC TRACY, Tablet Magazine: David, in your comment on Dan’s piece, you said that “Jew hatred is part of the gospel of Islam and the practice of all Muslim states in the world today.” By contrast, a premise of Dan’s article is that there are in the world a relatively small group of Islamists—fundamentalists who subscribe to a violent, anti-Semitic, mutant strain of Islam—and, for the most part, ordinary Muslims who do no such thing, and that, contrary to the arguments of writers like Andrew McCarthy, most American Muslims are not Islamists. How do you respond to that? Is the problem with Islam or with Islamists? And if it’s with Islamists, how influential are Islamists in America? Are the people behind the Islamic center Islamists?

DAVID HOROWITZ: Like many Jews who are in denial about the existential threat to Israel and to Jews generally from the Islamic world, Daniel Luban thinks that the radical, Jew-hating element in Islam is relatively small, and consequently the threat is a pathology, which people like him call “Islamophobia.” Among such deniers there is a notable absence of attention to what the Islamic world actually does and says in relation to Jews or how seriously Muslims take the word of their God, who refers to Jews as “apes and pigs” and calls for their extermination (as per this infamous and well-known saying of the prophet: “The day of Judgment will come when Muslims fight the Jews and kill them”). Here are some corrective observations:

After the Sept. 11 attacks there were several public opinion surveys conducted in the Muslim world about Muslim views of Osama Bin Laden and his terror war against “crusaders and Jews.” The number of Muslims who supported Osama and the attacks ranged from a low 10 percent, or 150 million Muslims, to 50 percent, or 750 million (the latter figure coming from a poll conducted by Al Jazeera). These cannot be dismissed as insignificant minorities, even if reduced by a factor of 10.

The Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—head of a nation of 70 million and a man who claims to speak in the name of Islam—has called for wiping Israel from the face of the earth, a comment seconded by a former prime minister of Malaysia. Leaders of the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank are openly opposed to the existence of the Jewish state, officially celebrate mass murderers of Jewish civilians as “martyrs” and “saints,” and run a school system that teaches kindergarteners to hate Jews and aspire to kill them. The charter of the Islamist terror organization Hamas calls for Israel’s extinction in the name of Allah, while the head of Hezbollah, the largest terrorist army in the world, armed with 30,000-plus rockets courtesy of Syria and Iran, has called for the liquidation of Israel and the extermination of the Jews.

That’s the open and frank admission side of the ledger, the millions of Muslims with genocidal designs on the Jews. Copping to genocide by the way is something that Hitler never dared to do. He thought it prudent to keep the Final Solution hidden until it was a fait accompli, lest he incite civilized opposition to his plan. In contrast, the demand for a second Holocaust has been trumpeted from the Islamic rooftops, and there has been no official opposition from the Islamic world. This is a reasonable indication that these open calls are the tip of a very ugly iceberg of Jew hatred that runs the length and breadth of Muslim ummah. There are some 57 Islamic nations in the world, and not one of them has condemned these genocidal proclamations. Au contraire. They have added their own condemnations of Israeli crimes in hundreds of U.N. resolutions they sponsored. But there is not a single U.N. resolution condemning 60 years of terrorist acts by Palestinians and Arabs, beginning with the creation of the Fedayeen in 1949. Not a single one.

The same silence over genocidal intentions blankets virtually all the mosques in America, at least 80 percent of which are funded by the rulers of Saudi Arabia, the most bigoted promoter of jihadism and its Jew-hating ideology in the world today. The same can be said of the principal Muslim organizations in the United States, the Muslim American Society, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

All of these organizations are elements of the Muslim Brotherhood network, which spawned al-Qaida and Hamas. (CAIR is a direct spinoff of Hamas.) None of them have condemned Hezbollah and Hamas or their patrons in Teheran. The same is true of the Muslim Students Association, representing most Muslim students in American universities, which is also a part of the Muslim Brotherhood network. The Muslim Students Association is currently conducting a nationwide campaign to support the Islamic crusade to eliminate the Jewish state, which it refers to as “occupied Palestine.” When I confronted a former officer of the Muslim Student Association on the University of California, San Diego, campus and asked her if she were for or against a genocide of the Jews she said, “For it.” Refusal to condemn Hezbollah and Hamas, which in my experience is universal among Muslim Students Associations, is tantamount to such an endorsement. (You can see our exchange here.) The same Judeophobic campaign is now a principal focus of the secular left, although these secularists don’t seem to fully grasp the implications of their support. All these elements are also supporting the Ground Zero mosque whose leader also finds Islamic terrorism “too complex” to condemn.

These are troubling indicators of evil afoot. Dismissing them as figments of a conspiratorial paranoia is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy and a form of psychological denial. It is not an argument that anyone, let alone a Jew, should take seriously.

DANIEL LUBAN: David Horowitz’s response to my article is primarily devoted to reciting a familiar litany of examples of anti-Semitism in Muslim-majority countries. Many of his arguments in this regard are cherry-picked or otherwise misleading, but I won’t spend time answering them, for they are irrelevant to the point of my piece. My argument was not about attitudes toward Jews in Syria or Saudi Arabia, but about attitudes toward Muslims in America.

Even if I were to concede all of Horowitz’s arguments about the prevalence of anti-Semitism in Muslim-majority countries, this would not answer the central question, which is whether the theories of the American “anti-jihadi” movement are a sane response to the situation in which we find ourselves. If they are not, if—as I argued—they represent a kind of bigotry and paranoia akin to anti-Semitism, Know-Nothingism, or McCarthyism, it is not particularly relevant whether equally paranoid or odious views are prevalent elsewhere in the world.

For Horowitz’s defense of the “anti-jihadis” to hold water, he needs to show not merely that many Muslims in other countries hold objectionable views, but that Muslim-Americans are actually engaged in the kind of conspiracy against the United States that people like Andrew McCarthy and Pamela Geller posit. On this count, his arguments are remarkably thin. The primary piece of evidence he offers to show that most Muslim-Americans are genocidal anti-Semites is that not enough of them for his liking are willing to publicly denounce Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups.

One does not need to be fond of either group to notice how shaky the logic is here. Peter King, the hawkish New York congressman who has been a leader of the anti-mosque campaign, is a longtime apologist for the IRA, and I similarly imagine that it would be nearly impossible to get New York Jewish politicians like Sen. Chuck Schumer or Rep. Anthony Weiner to publicly label as “terrorists” Zionist militant groups like the Irgun or the Stern Gang. What follows from this? That King, Schumer, and Weiner are terrorist conspirators against the United States? I suspect the reason that even many Muslim-Americans who privately abhor Hamas and Hezbollah’s attacks on civilians are reluctant to “denounce” them to David Horowitz is that they realize, correctly, that he will simply pocket these denunciations and use them in the service of a broader Likudnik agenda that they find abhorrent.

The YouTube video that Horowitz posts is unintentionally revealing in this regard. A UCSD student confronts Horowitz over his allegation that her campus Muslim Students Association has financial ties to terrorist groups and presses him to provide some evidence for this claim. Rather than doing so, Horowitz—who is nothing if not a savvy showman—quickly changes the subject to the student’s own personal attitudes toward Hamas. Of course, whether an individual college student is willing to publicly denounce Hamas has nothing whatsoever to do with the factual question of whether the UCSD student association has financial links to terrorist groups, which Horowitz is content to insinuate without providing any evidence.

To determine whether people like McCarthy and Geller represent a measured response to a real threat or a hysterical response to a conspiracy of their own imagining, it might be helpful to examine the central claims that they make. Let’s leave aside the most obviously insane bits (Bill Ayers is the real author of Obama’s memoir; Malcolm X is Obama’s real father) and focus on their views about the Muslim threat to the United States. Does Horowitz really believe that the goal of the large majority of Muslim-Americans is “to supplant American constitutional democracy with sharia law”? Does he really believe that Muslims who privately live according to religious values within their own communities are doing so purely instrumentally, as a way to take over the country and impose these values on everyone else? Does he really believe that the president is a “neocommunist” who is secretly working in cahoots with these Islamists to implement a shared totalitarian vision in the United States?

If he genuinely does believe these things, I admit that there simply isn’t much more that I can say to him. But if he doesn’t—as I suspect he doesn’t—then I have to wonder how he feels about the fact that these views and those similar to them are rapidly becoming ubiquitous on the American right. Many hawks seem to feel that the Pamela Gellers of the world may be nutty and misguided, but that they make useful shock troops for fighting these political battles, so it’s best simply to hold one’s nose and make good use of them. It seems to me that there is something very dangerous in this logic, and that the anti-jihadis—egged on by conservative elites like Newt Gingrich, Bill Kristol, and Horowitz himself—are leading the country into a very ugly place.

MARC TRACY: David, I think Daniel is conceding—or if not conceding, at least saying that for the sake of argument he would concede—your point about Muslim anti-Semitism in other parts of the world, but he is challenging you on the question of Muslim anti-Semitism in the United States specifically. Can it happen here and does it happen here? Is the mosque a manifestation of it, or a potential manifestation?

DAVID HOROWITZ: Daniel Luban has failed to understand my comments and therefore dodged the issue between us. A sign held up at the counter-demonstration by supporters of the Ground Zero mosque summarizes the real nub of our contention: “Groundless Fear Is the Real Enemy.” Is it?

The point of my response was not that there is “anti-Semitism” and not just “in Muslim countries” but that there is a global Muslim movement for a genocide of the Jews, beginning with the destruction of the Jewish state; and that this movement was spawned by the Muslim Brotherhood and is supported by the major Muslim organizations in the United States including the main supporters of the Ground Zero mosque, and wittingly or unwittingly, enabled by their allies on the political left.

Luban does not challenge a single fact I presented, which shows how deaf, dumb, and blind critics of the “anti-jihadis,” as Luban calls us, can be. Luban studiously ignores the elaborate documentation of the political beliefs and aims of the Muslim Brotherhood network and of Islam itself, which we have presented and instead attempts to draw ludicrous parallels designed to show a moral equivalence between Jewish and Muslim terrorists and their apologists. The difference is obvious to all but the politically obtuse. When some Jews commit acts that are heinous, Jews condemn them, they don’t build $100-million monuments on or near the site where the crimes were committed. Only Islam would build a mosque—the Dome of the Rock—right on top of the holiest place of another religion and then name a terrorist army (the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade) after it. The silence of the central organizations of the Muslim world both here and abroad in the face of atrocities committed in the name of their God and their refusal to condemn by name those who commit them is both deafening and telling; and the failure of Daniel Luban and the left generally to appreciate this is ominous for Americans and Jews.

MARC TRACY: Dan, this one’s for you. In your piece, you credit Christopher Caldwell with providing one of the “more sophisticated treatments” of the Islamicization of Europe. I want your reaction to something Caldwell wrote on Slate this week:

There is no Christian equivalent—either for sophistication or influence—to the body of revolutionary political thought that arose among the Sunni Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in the middle of the last century, or in Iran in the Age of Khomeini. To say this is not to confuse Islam and Islamism, or to imply that Islam is always and everywhere a violent religion. Nor is it to deny that the scriptural barriers to Christian violence are notoriously easy to breach. But Islam is equipped, as Christianity is not, with explicit contemporary doctrines of political violence.

While you and David could both find things in that paragraph to buttress your respective cases, I’d like to challenge you: Isn’t Caldwell correct that Islamic fundamentalism has uniquely strong resonance today? And, if so, isn’t the comparison of Islamophobia to anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism facile, as Judaism and Catholicism are not associated with similarly powerful fundamentalisms? (Yes, the Stern Gang existed, but its ideology was never as widespread and potent and universally violent as jihadism.) Even if most Muslims aren’t Islamists, doesn’t the unique resonance of Islamic fundamentalism pose a problem to the building of an Islamic center so close to the site of Islamic fundamentalism’s most notorious atrocity?

DANIEL LUBAN: Unlike the crop of self-proclaimed “Islam analysts” that has sprung up since Sept. 11—most of whom seem to think that their ability to use words like “sharia” and “jihad” in a sentence makes them experts on the finer points of Islamic theology—I will not pretend to anything more than an interested layman’s knowledge of Islam as a religion. For that reason I won’t speculate on the extent to which violent Islamist groups are rooted in true, or false, or mainstream, or deviant interpretations of Islam. I do wish that those on the other side would similarly resist the urge to issue authoritative pronouncements on subjects they know nothing about. (Lee Smith, with whom I frequently disagree on these issues, recently had a good piece in Tablet Magazine picking apart the absurd interpretations of “sharia” put forth by mosque opponents.)

But on the question of whether the “unique resonance of Islamic fundamentalism” poses a problem for the building of the Islamic center: First, what “resonance” are we talking about? That the center would resonate with and embolden violent Muslim radicals? I would expect quite the opposite. It is likely that radicals would be disgusted both with the center’s conciliatory theology and with the overall message it sends—namely, that the Unites States is so welcoming to Muslims that it is willing to let them practice their faith anywhere they choose, even a few blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attacks. It is equally likely that these radicals are rejoicing at the current controversy, realizing that every Islamophobic speech or rally or ad simply bolsters their claim that the United States is at war with Islam itself. In fact, the only extremists that the project seems to have “resonated” with are the right-wingers who believe—or at least pretend to—that the building would be a “9/11 victory monument” intended as a beachhead for sharia law in the United States.

“Islamic fundamentalism” is also a troublesome term, since it often seems to be applied (along with similar terms like “radical Islam” and “Islamofascism”) to any Muslims whom the labeler doesn’t like, regardless of whether their politics are either violent or rooted in religion. Regardless, it is obvious that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and Daisy Khan do not qualify under even the loosest definition of “Islamic fundamentalism,” despite the best efforts of their opponents to paint them as radicals. (Jeffrey Goldberg, another writer with whom I frequently disagree, has written persuasively on the ludicrousness of these charges.)

Part of the problem, I suspect, is that many of the mosque opponents themselves subscribe to a form of hardline Likudnik politics and therefore regard any view to the left of Norman Podhoretz as proof of radical anti-Semitism. We must also note the wild guilt-by-association tenor of the campaign against Rauf—as Robert Wright put it, a typical charge is that “Rauf’s wife has an uncle who used to be ‘a leader’ of a mosque that now has a Web site that links to the Web site of an allegedly radical organization.” It strikes me that similar chains of association could have been used to tie virtually any Jew in 1950s America to communism—you yourself may never have been a party member, but surely you had a cousin who had a wife who had a brother who was a member.

In any case, let’s accept that there are some significant, disturbing, and violent strains within Islam (regardless of what we call them and how extensive we think they are). Two points here. First, the fact that such radical elements do exist does not license us to descend into bigotry or conspiracy theories, just as the fact that many Jews in postwar America really were communists did not excuse the wild ravings that proliferated on the right about a “Judeo-Bolshevik” plot against America.

Second, the “anti-jihadi” extremists who have led the anti-mosque campaign present precisely the wrong way to respond to the existence of these radical elements. Their message is that Muslims should be regarded as threats simply for subscribing to religious precepts, even if they denounce violence and even if they adhere to the laws of the land. This, of course, removes much of the incentive to chart a moderate course—if nothing less than the full-blown atheism of an Ayaan Hirsi Ali will satisfy such critics, then why risk a partial assimilation that will only be rejected as proof of nefarious intentions? Imam Rauf was the guy who did everything right, who was conciliatory even to the point of alienating his constituents—if even he is now being tarred as a violent radical, I imagine many Muslims-Americans are asking themselves, then why even bother?

MARC TRACY: David, I’d urge you to consider: Are opponents of the center working to alienate American Muslims? And: Parse what exactly you think is different about the radical elements within Islam (as opposed to other religions/groups) that justifies special concern and vigilance.

DAVID HOROWITZ: The Ground Zero mosque is the project of an Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, who in the age of Jimmy Carter supported the fundamentalist Islamic revolution of the Ayatollah Khomeni, replete with hangings of gays, oppression of women, sponsorship of Hezbollah, and the murder of Americans and Jews. In the age of Obama and Ahmadinejad and in the face of a revolt by the Iranian people against this medieval regime, Rauf counseled our president to support the “guiding principles” of the theocratic dictatorship whose leaders continue to hang gays, arm the world’s largest terrorist army, Hezbollah, and not incidentally threaten to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. (See Christopher Hitchens, “The Test of Tolerance.”)

Not surprisingly, the construction of the Ground Zero mosque is supported by the leader of Hamas and by the Muslim Brotherhood network, which includes the Muslim American Society, the Islamic Society of North America, CAIR, and other anti-American, anti-Israel, pro-jihadist groups with which Rauf is closely connected. Small wonder that he considers the United States an “accomplice to 9/11” (one of his associates, Sheik Muhammad Gemeaha, is actually on record saying that the Jews did it.)

Luban seems to think that it’s important to bend over backward to show Islamists that we are actually tolerant by allowing the construction of a $100 million dollar mosque adjacent to the site where Muslims killed 3,000 Americans in the worst attack on our soil in the history of the republic. Why aren’t they already impressed by the fact that there are mosques all over the Unites States but no churches or synagogues in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, or that America has sent its youth around the world to save the lives of millions of Muslims in Bosnia, in Somalia, and in Afghanistan? Why aren’t Israel’s Muslim enemies impressed by the fact that Israel grants more rights to the million-plus Muslims who are citizens of the Jewish state than are granted to the Muslim citizens of any Muslim country? Why do U.S. leftists and Jimmy Carter refer to the most tolerant country in the Middle East as an “apartheid state”?

Anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and sympathy for jihadists are not driven by rational considerations, as Luban seems to think, but by irrational hatreds and xenophobic religious creeds.

MARC TRACY: Dan, we can argue over Rauf’s intentions all day. It might be interesting to argue that it actually is important to bend over backward rather than to deny that that’s what we’re doing. But of course, it’s your argument, not mine, so we’ll give you the final word.

DANIEL LUBAN: The opponents of the Park51 project have now resorted to manufacturing an endless stream of out-of-context quotes and sensationalistic “revelations” about Rauf; the idea seems to be that even if no individual claim bears scrutiny, the succession of attacks will reinforce the impression that Rauf is a radical. Since I have limited space here, I won’t spend it answering David Horowitz’s latest attacks on the imam—suffice it to say that they are as cherry-picked and misleading the other charges that have been brought forth against him.

I am more interested in Horowitz’s claim that the controversy is about whether we will “bend over backward to show Islamists that we are actually tolerant by allowing” the construction of the center. How, exactly, does “allowing” Muslims to build what they like on property they own with their own money constitute “bend[ing] over backward” to them? On the contrary, it is simply allowing them the same freedom that we extend to all other religions. As I discussed in my piece, this is symptomatic of the way that Horowitz and his allies operate—they claim that they simply oppose any special advantage being granted to Islam over other religions, when in fact their prescriptions call for specific and intrusive forms of discrimination against Muslims in particular.

I would, however, like to thank Horowitz for the arguments he has not made. Much of this pointless controversy has been dominated by bad-faith arguments that opposition to the Park51 center has nothing to do with opposition to Islam. (It’s merely that the blocks surrounding the World Trade Center site are “sacred ground,” you see—notwithstanding the strip clubs and dive bars and fast food restaurants that fill them—and opponents of the center would quickly drop their objections if it were merely moved five blocks away rather than two.) Horowitz, with greater honesty, has focused in on the real issues at stake: the role of Islam in America, and whether we should assume until proven otherwise that the bulk of Muslim-Americans are enemies of the state.

Horowitz closes by attributing to me a position that I have never argued: namely, that anti-Semitism and violent Islamism are “driven by rational considerations.” My argument was a very different one: that whatever the roots of these tendencies and however repugnant they may be, we solve nothing—in fact, we make matters worse—by descending into the sort of paranoid Islamophobia that is currently ascendant on the right. Horowitz flirts with these conspiracy theories without giving any real evidence for the allegation that the bulk of Muslim-Americans are genocide-minded Muslim Brotherhood sleeper agents. (Hence his non-response to my first rebuttal, in which he merely reiterates the same flimsy “evidence” that he asserted the first time.) Whether he actually believes this stuff or whether he is cynically using it for political purposes is ultimately irrelevant; either way, he and his allies are treading on dangerous (and for a Jew, depressingly familiar) ground.

Daniel Luban is a doctoral student in political science at the University of Chicago. David Horowitz is the president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the author of Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left. He recently published A Cracking of the Heart, a memoir about his daughter.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

This article and the Time Magazine cover notwithstanding,Islamophobia constitutes 1.3% of all hate crimes in America, trending downward since 2006 – 105
anti-Moslem incidents in 2008 compares to 2876 anti-black and 1013 anti-semitic incidents in the same time period. See:

3/4 Catholic 1/4 Jew says:

I believe that there is a threat in this world from fundamentalist, win-or-take-the-others-down-with-you mania. And this mania is not the exclusive property of any faith or any culture. If it was, life and navigating life would be a whole lot simpler.

In Uganda, the ten commandants were turned into the marching orders of the Lords Resistance Army. And significant evangelical ministers want to exterminate all homosexuals, male and female. Young lesbians are being outed by their ministers, and are being taken into back rooms and group-raped back into the heterosexual fold.

A mosque does not equal a launch pad for a dirty bomb. And what somebody believed to be true during the Carter Administration does not mean that the same individual has not grown, changed, or recanted. I am not the same person that I was back during the Carter White House, and I am a better person today. At least I would hope so.

My biggest fear is that when attention becomes myopic, and when we take minutiae and inflate their significance, we commit great errors in observation. Two things seem to me to happen: hyperbole is made over insignificance, and in doing so we not only lose an accurate read on the real threats in the greater landscape, but we also wind ourselves up into some sort of sanctimonious zeal and we begin to become similar in action to those we would never wish to be.

The “Ground Zero Mosque” which is neither at Ground Zero nor is a mosque is not a threat to our security, but the inflated punditry and sanctimony surrounding this “debate” might very well be.

Daniel Luban wonders “Whether [Horowitz] actually believes this stuff or whether he is cynically using it for political purposes is ultimately irrelevant; either way, he and his allies are treading on dangerous (and for a Jew, depressingly familiar) ground.”

That is not hard to answer. Going back to his Stalinist days and until fairly recently, Horowitz has never demonstrated any interest in Israel, Jews or Judaism. He suddenly found his ethnic roots when he thought he could use it to advance his sudden rightwing agenda.

Horowitz is, in my opinion, a practitioner of taqqiya i.e., I think he is still a Stalinist (read the way he writes and argues) but is simply covering it up by pretending to be something else — in this case a Jew.

Luban demolishes him and he’s 40 years younger!

Ok, David Horowitz.
Can you document an increase in anti-Semitic acts and particularly againt Jewish individuals? And specifically by Moslems or Arabs?
It would seem that such increase would go along with your larger claims.

I have no doubt that there may be an increase in anti-Jewish incidents but I bet they are everywhere and even among Christians. Or maybe Hindus as well, for god’s sake.

So if we should be paranoid — which may be so — then it should be in general.

Dani Levi says:

I do believe the comparison between the Stern Gang and Islamofacism is flawed in so far that Stern was a nationalist movement ( Zionism being a nationalist movement, I do hope we may agree on this children! ) restricted to Israel. where as islamists wish to kill every one who is not Muslim, especially Jews, anywhere in the world. although stern & co murdered people, 9/11 makes them look like amateurs, never mind Afghanistan under the Taliban or Iran yada yada yada. It is like comparing the IRA with the KGB. it just don’t fly Dan.

Yale Gancherov says:

The sheer bulk of worldwide Muslim population, compared to the worldwide Jewish population, renders any analogies between attitudes toward the one to attitudes toward the other irrelevant in any real flesh-and-blood survival-oriented sense. Yes, there is a parallel in the world of sheer logical principle, but, while possibly providing the advocate of such with an intellectually righteous feeling, this is an invalid indicator for righteous action. Treating Islam (distinguished here from individual Muslims) as we would like them to treat Judaism will reult in our extermination as Jews, since Islam proposes a world at peace only after all people are Muslim, and commands all means necessary to achieve this, including willful deception and murderous violence. While all Muslim institutions are, therefore suspect, only findings of fact and legal due process are righteous in any specific counter-actions. Opposing the buildingof any mosque and it’s use for prayer fails this test. Convincing evidence of the use of any facility by any individual or individuals to foster sedition or treason does meet that test — against those individuals, not the mosques themselves or it’s other law-abiding congregants. Claims of a social justice mission to advocate for the self-perceived rights of the supposed Palestinians may, in fact, meet the test of free speech, but other exhortations and trainings may not, and need to be treated accordingly.

Dani Levi says:

on another note, I wish Tablet would not get Luban and Horowitz to discuss this delicate matter. Both are too extreme to do the subject justice. I would suggest reaching out to more impartial academics or maybe even a security analyst, people who do not seek the limelight like Palin and Sharpton, but individuals who have no overt agenda. If this magazine wishes to rise to the current challenge, it should look harder for more nuanced contributors. Unless of course “Jew-baiting” is part of the plan here. I know it is not, but just try harder for crying out loud! We live in fascinating times, and Tablet has the means to really add to the national discourse leaving these two by the way side.

SP Resnick says:

What no one is addressing is that the myths and fabrications that have created all three of the major religions have created people that are unable to deal with the reality of life and therefore look to their various ascents into “heaven” as escape – and worse as their justification of violence against the “other”. Sad that we all cannot concentrate on improving the lot of our sisters and brothers on this planet and forget the rantings of delusional prophets thousand of years ago. Imagine.

I agree that the discussion that is taking place in our country is not about a mosque, but about the acceptance of Islam into America, the acceptance of Muslims into America. We are coach potato analysts on this topic, influenced by years of war against multiple Muslim Nations and terrorists groups. And a fear that is driven by every major news provider in the country.

With one hand we are being asked to open ourselves to Muslims, and with the other we are navigating drones to kill Muslims. This is a complex emotional issue. And it is good that we are beginning to talk about it out loud. But the hard left and right positions being taken are not helpful to Americans who in the end need to come to terms with how we want to welcome and participate with “others.”

My sense is that our country needs this conversation, and doing it in the middle of a war with Muslim countries is challenging. I would say we are doing pretty well given America’s history – and hopefully we will find a better outcome than we did during WWII when we built encampments for Japanese Americans.

Burton Paikoff says:

If trhey are so peaceful, why are they still recruiting and training young muslims to blow up[ American Airplanes and New York Subways.Why have these Muslim’s using our Freedom of Religion till Training and supporting young American Muslim’s in ways of blowing up our Airplanes and New York Subways. Have any of these Demonstraters ever turn over the Imams that recruit these American Muslim Terrorist.

A student on an American campus is taped openly saying that she’s in favor of Jews being hunted down and exterminated? Was she expelled? Would this constitute a hate crime?

I am used to leftists spreading lies about me but just for the record, Mr. Rosenberg, I was born in 1939 into a Communist family and in 1956 when I was 17 had shed its Stalinist beliefs. I wrote my first lengthy defense of Israel as a cover story in the leftwing magazine Ramparts under the title “The Fate of the Jews.” It can be read in its entirety in my book Left Illusions, which is available on Kindle or through my Freedom Center. In short, I have been an anti-Stalinist for 54 years and a public defender of Israel for 36. I did not discover Israel recently nor is my interest a pretext for advancing a right-wing agenda, unless Rosenberg thinks the survival of the Jews is a right-wing agenda.

A plague on both Horowitz and Luban for not documenting their accusations as they are making them. Either may or may not be correct, but if we could be subjected to less verbiage and more citation so that we may better inform ourselves without the need for intermediaries I for one would appreciate it.

Were the Jews in Germany who were aware enough to realize the Nazis meant to mass murder them Naziophobic? That was what Luban would have labeled them. Were the Jews who were “anti-Nazi” (as in anti-Jihadist) exhibiting “a kind of bigotry and paranoia akin to anti-Semitism, Know-Nothingism, or McCarthyism” as the mass murder program had no yet begun. Time and again despots have announced to the world their desire to mass murder Jews. History repeats itself. But Luban goes into denial as he is afraid to fight the Nazism of this Century – Islamism.

Well, this has been interesting. My truth lies somewhere in between these two voices. They are too adamant and arrogant. As Jews we are and have always been easy targets and should not do unto others what is done to us. On the other hand we should be keenly aware of the threats against us, wherever they come from. Bending too much to the Left, we might find ourselves under attack from an enemy we refused to acknowledge because we didn’t call a spade a spade. Bending too much to the Right, we may become like our own enemies.

Judith M. Rood says:

Medieval rabbis had a drash on this subject, which predicted that when the children of Ishmael forget that their god is the God of Israel, the end of the world will come. In the 21st century, we can say the same thing about Christians and Jews. If we cut away our biblical moorings, we drift towards selfishness. With that come coercion and deceit. Injustice. The Islamic doctrine of takiyya, or dissumulation, makes all political proclamations by Muslims suspect. Distrust of Muslims is at an all time high because our media represent Islam as monolithic and essentialist. This week’s Christian Edition of the Jerusalem Post contains articles about Imam Palazzi, Mansab Abu Yusuf, and Taysir Abu Saada who have all remembered that the God of Israel is the God of all. Recognizing the place of Israel in the community of nations, reassuring Jews that all non-Jews are not their enemies, and resolving the conflicting real estate disputes between Muslims, Jews, and Christians in Israel and Palestine in a way that honors God will go a long way to putting this controversy behind us. Let us construct an edifice grounded in the public memory of the intolerance and hatred that have allowed the principalities and powers of this world to wreak havoc with the lives of people world wide. Let us recognize the depravity of human nature and erect memorials to our crimes against one another. Morocco has been engaged in such a national project, commemorating the abuses of the monarchy in the past, promising to remember in order to prevent injustice in the future. This controversy, like the one over Mamilla and the Museum of Tolerance in Jerusalem, has helped Muslims, Jews, and Christians to hear one another’s grievances and pain. Can we now put the past behind us in an effort to strive toward the future with hope? Or must we lapse into bitter controversy, acid accusations, and hateful intolerance?

Not even close to being the new anti-Semitism. Jews were, and are, discriminated against in the States, without rhyme or reason, certainly not because of terrorist attacks from Jews against her. Its discrimination, based on the days’ events, but the comparison, is itself, once again, a kick in the kike’s head! In fact, its word terrorism!

kctex says:

I’d like to ask Horowitz what he thinks about one of the major leaders/funders of the Muslim Brotherhood being a 7% owner in FOX News and if that gives him pause at all, despite his past support for right-wing FOX contributors such as Anne Coulter…

Dear Havri,

Those who hate Jews and Israel must than Allah for giving them Daniel Lubin. We’ve been through it before. Even David Horowitz was a liberal who worked for the Black Panthers and Leonard Bernstein held fund raising parties for them and they openly declared their anti-Jew tendencies. Jews like Lubin and Rabbi Lerner and so many others are truly “The Perfect Enemy” and our enemies love them for it since they won’t fight back and you can kill them and rape them and rob them and they’ll find a rationale why they can accept that. Elie Weisel forgave the Nazi murderers of his parents. Can you see any Muslim or normal person doing that?

Saudi Arabia’s national religion is Whabeeism. It is a dangerous, violent brand of Islam and they even have black slaves still in Saudi and other Arab nations. I know I was at the Sheik of Gaza’s home for a party in the 1970’s and the servants were black slaves or Obidim. The Saudi Ambassador to the US was caught on camera and microphone calling a black American politician an Obid or slave. He profusely apologized. Who paid for the Washington DC mosque? Saudi Arabia. What brand of Islam is being taught to hundreds of thousands of black prison inmates by Saudi Arabian Imams? Whabeeism. Who is their easiest target as already evidenced by the black converts attack on a Jewish synagogue? Always the Jews because they don’t fight back or defend themselves. Jews like to say “Never Again” and I say “Why the Hell Not”.

Lubin and the Socialist, Lesbian Sherry Wolf and so many more have replaced Judaism for Liberalism. Even a Jew who lost his daughter on 9/11 believes in the Moslem’s right to build the mosque there.

How many Moslems were killed on 9/11? Ask the Moslems and they will tell you hundreds. The truth is about 23 if that much; but the Arabs know how to lie. Six million Jews live in America and have we demanded the country close down on Saturday. One day as the Moslem population continues to grow they will

Ittai says:

This “debate” reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live “Point / Counterpoint” routine between Jane Curtis and Dan Aykroyd.

Nonewithstanding the ideal situation we would all like, there is strong evidence that foreign funding of Islamic institutions in the UK directly or indirectly nurtured extremism that led to the 7/7 (2005) bombings primarily perpertrated by UK born middle-class Muslims who were radicalized.

Readers who are open to making up their own minds about this complex and vexing issue should watch the Channel Four documentary “Dispatches: Undercover Mosque” available on YouTube.

There were complaints after it was aired and after an investigation, the UK regulator concluded: “Undercover Mosque was a legitimate investigation, uncovering matters of important public interest. Ofcom found no evidence that the broadcaster had misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity. On the evidence (including untransmitted footage and scripts), Ofcom found that the broadcaster had accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with
the subject matter responsibly and in context.”

Reference pp. 9-20:

As a final thought, Anthony Lewis admits in “Freedom for the Thought We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment”: “In an age in which words have inspired acts of mass murder and terrorism, it is not as easy for me as it once was to believe that the only remedy for evil counsels, in Brandeis’s phrase, should be good ones.”

Ittai says:

Jane Curtin (typo, not Curtis). And for the benefit of doubt, I strongly support the building of mosques or Islamic community centers in the US on the principle of religious tolerance, so long as the majority of funding comes from the community it proposes to serve.


1- Throughout history words have inspired unspeakable acts. This is nothing new, unfortunately.

2- If we follow your requirement that funding for religious organizations come from the “community it proposes to serve”, does that mean we as Jews shouldn’t donate money to shuls or Jewish communities in financial distress, or to Israel?

Ittai says:

Life is complicated, Toni.

It is self-deluding to deny the fact that Islamic mosques and cultural institutions in the Western world have been (ab)used to foment support for anti-Americanism and, in some cases, atrocities as a result of foreign (specifially, Saudi, to not beat around the bush) funding.

Equally, Jews know all too well how bigotry and intolerance can be masked by zoning laws

I am suggesting that one was in which to modulate this reality is through due diligence of funding. How one implements this in a
constitutional and fair manner is difficult, but not impossible.


I don’t deny that mosques etc have been so used. I do think that scrutinizing religious funding is nigh unto impossible. And frankly funding of various causes by the Christian right concerns me at least as much, if not more so than Saudi funding.

Ittai says:

Reasonable people can disagree, Toni; but, I would encourage you to watch “Undercover Mosque” before discarding this admittedly nascent idea.

The genie is out of the bottle and the meta-debate will not go away. Transparent due-diligence of funding (and potential restrictions) seems preferable to me than doing nothing which will only increase the already growing anti-Muslim sentiment that will end in even more tears.

But, I am not wedded to this and would be happy to hear any constructive alternatives you and others have (beyond the absolutism on both sides that many of us have grown tired of hearing).

[Back to listen mode for me]

9/11 made a lot of Muslim haters in America. At the same time, more Americans became Jew haters. That is how history rolls out. The Past carries the Future with it. Even now, a lot of “Americans” have no use for Indians! The Muslim call all now-Muslims, the Infidel. However, Infidel was the word coined to describe Muslims during the absurd Crusades to “save” the Holy Land from the infidel. It is ironic, that 4 of the Jewish Prophets were peaching in Mesopotamia. (If you include Jonah.) Consider this, the literacy level of most Muslim countries, including Afghanistan, is about 14% for women & 34% for men. Therefore, what they are told by the imam what the Koran says, they believe.

I do not favor Park51 for several reasons, chiefly, that is is against the “law” to build any church or synogague in countries like Saudi Arabia. Mayor Bloomberg is the only Fascist-Jew I know, dictating he should have another term & declaring smoking in any bar in The City is illegal; & endorsing the mosque by 9/11. I am reminded of the problematic paradox: What about if the Japanese bought a piece of land across from where the USS Arizona rests in Pearl Harbor to honor the Japanese who died “for the Emperor.” As the tragedy man plays out, I guess I will have to take that sign down in my Bar: “Irishman for hire. Will fight with anybody.” -Londo

David says:

Why are you giving David Horowitz a platform for his extremist views? Horowitz is nothing but a Jewish David Duke.

Fnord says:

Lets try the jew-test…

“Like many Jews who are in denial about the existential threat to Israel and to Jews generally from the Islamic world, Daniel Luban thinks that the radical, Jew-hating element in Islam is relatively small, and consequently the threat is a pathology, which people like him call “Islamophobia.””

translates to

“Like many xtians who are in denial about the existential threat to the US and to xtians in general from the Jewish world, D.L. thinks that , the radical,goyim hating element in Judaism is relatively small, and consequently the threat is a pathology, wich people like him call “antisemitism”.

Feel free to apply method to the rest of his words.

The Jewish supporters of Islam clearly demonstrate that there is no limit to the human stupidity overall and stupidity of Jewish intellectuals specifically.

It is really very simple. History showed that when people announce that they want to kill Jews one should trust them.

My advice for Jewish intellectuals whose understanding of history clearly lacking – look at the picture of one of your own Daniel Pearl just before Muslims cut of his head. You may have the same emotion of somewhat ironic disbelieve,if you succeed in empowering adherents of “religion of peace”, when they get close enough to your head.

As for the normal and mentally undisturbed people, we better do whatever we can to convince other civilized people that Islam is deadly thread to civilization.

As for the Israel, the only chance they still have is to use preemptive strike and if success of strike requires to use WMD so be it.

Sephardi Son says:

It was uplifting for the soul to read the cogent retort written by David Horowitz to the nasty, churlish insult against him posted by MJ Rosenberg. In respose to Rosenberg’s snide, puerile spittle, David provided a solid, independently-verifiable refutation based on the written record. Rosenberg was totally owned by Horowitz in this exchange.
!רוזנברג, אתה שוואַנץ גדול

Shalom Freedman says:

David Horowitz provided evidence and Daniel Luban provided denial and escapism. I find it ridiculous when analogies are made between the situation of the Jews and the situation of the Islamic community. The small and diminishing world Jewish community is being intimidated in almost every place in the world there is a growing Islamic community alongside it. The Jews value ‘survival’ and ‘peace’ the Islamic world values ‘conquest’ and ‘expansion’.
If one wishes to get a taste of Islamic values at work in America look at the YouTube of the demonstration against Ambassador Oren at San Francisco State, or any of the anti- Israel demonstrations during the Gaza War. David Horowitz is correct in pointing to a murderous and even genocidal attitude toward Jews on the part of a good share of the Islamic community.

invisible_hand says:

this article and “dialogue” is actually considering the opinion that one entire religion should have fewer rights in america, given the essentialist interpretation of one critic.
this is shameful.

I happened to be listening to the August 20, 2010 edition of On the Media ( and they raise some excellent points.

Among them –
1) this building is not actually at Ground Zero, yet many major media outlets persist in calling it the Ground Zero mosque.
2) there are already two mosques in the same area (also restaurants, porno shops, retail outlets, theaters and everything else we have in NYC.
3) the center has been in the planning stages for quite some time, yet it didn’t become the firestorm we have now until election season got underway.

Very good piece. Thanks for posting Ittai.

moshe the beadle says:

.זה מאוד משעמם להסתכל על טיפשים שמאלנים

What everyone misses here is what Andrew McCarthey has documented and that is although many individual moslems do not share the crazy beliefs, they are silent. Very similar to Germans during the Nazi era where to speak up led to serious consequences; not quite the same here but similar in that there is no Luther, or various “moslem” sects with any voice. Hence, the non-violent moslem is alone. You don’t see carryings on of moderate moslems marching on Washington to present their views. For example, every Jew so to speak is his one God and speaks loudly; but good moslems have no voice as a group. And that is why the radicals are so powerful; they intimidate, not necessarily physically, but socially.
And what is although the crazies are a minority, they are such a danger and that is what is Luban does not get and unfortunately Horowitz does not make this argument.
Just imagine if the “good” moslems separated into so many sects like the protestants each proclaiming there own interpretation; this would dilute the power of the crazies. And as long as that does not happen, then one must be on guard. The nazi’s were a minority but the silence was deafening in both Germany and Europe.
I wonder about Lubin ignoring Rauf’s praise of the recent Thuggish Iranian crackdown in the last election. It reminds me of the head of the American Olympics in 1936 scratching two Jewish relay runners so as not to offend Hitler. What is the difference between Rauf and that incident. None. Why does everyone in favor of him avoid this??? Rauf is no Niemoler. IF Lubin were serious and honest he would support those moslems on the fringe with respect to MSM who are fighting to cleanse the religion. The don’t apologize for IRan; they don’t blame us for 911.
Lubin is blinded just as Chas Lindberg and other decent people otherwise were blinded.


Nobody is missing anything. Some people just don’t agree with you.

Ittai says:

Len, I would agree — as per my earlier comments — that we need to recognize: a) there is something about Islamic history, tradition and teachings that has allowed radical Islam to gain adherents on a global basis irrespective of ethnicity; b) ultimately, this problem can only be solved within the Western Muslim community; and, c) there are things Western governments have been doing to mitigate the spread of radical Islam.

In the UK, for example, the government policy was of multi-culturalism plus infiltration. But, the 7/7 bombing demonstrated this was not working. The suicide bombers were: a) middle class (American definition); and, b) children of immigrants who have successfully assimilated. It turns out that a toehold for this radical Islam came from imported teachers and “educational” material coming that is attractive to young people searching for an authentic identity. In my view, this is not dissimilar to the BT phenomenon in Judaism, but with far more lethal results.

This is the basis for my earlier comments advocating transparent due diligence of funding to help mitigate the possibility of moderate American Islam being corrupted in the same way. But, blackballing all Muslims as passive supporters of terrorism is wrong – both morally and practically.

the argument is not about to build or not to build but where to build!!

The left is trying to distract and distort the REAL ISSUE here!!

Those against the mosque are not denying muslim the practice of their religion or their building of another mosque but pleading for some sensitivity and respect to those who lost their lives in the hands of radical muslims. This will be a real test for muslim to show the rest of America that they can practice respect and restrain.

The majority of Americans feel is an INSULT. Most of us feel that it is insensitive and inappropriate. Opposing the site does not make us islamophobics but rational, respectful and sensitive human beings!

The left is always on the wrong side of history, defending the enemies of America or the perpetators of the worse human crimes while directing vile attacks or demonizing any American who disagree with their leftist views.

For example, the debate above…Daniel could not deny not even one fact put foward by David, so Daniel resorts to the politics of personal attacks. A recurring tactic of the left, they can’t win an argument so they resort to the politics of personal destruction and demonize their opposition from Joe McCarthy to Bush to Palin.

The left distort the argument by accusing, insulting and/or attacking those against the site, not the building of the mosque BUT THE SITE. Again we are not against muslim building a mosque, we just feel is not the appropriate place or site. Is that too much to ask?? I do not think so….every reasonable american does not think is much to ask.

Ittai says:

Regarding Rauf, Len, I think the truth is simpler and less sinister than people imagine.

In my view he is just a hustler who has been telling each of many different constituencies that which they wish to hear.

Of course, the problem will be that the constituencies that end up funding the $100m will be the real decision makers. Rauf is a side show. Which, again, is why I believe it important to follow Deep Throat’s advice: follow the money.

Ittai says:

Ines — people are certainly divided on this emotive issue; but, I think it is inaccurate to conclude this is a Left/Right issue.

Polls in NYC, for example, show there is a significant amount of opposition despite its Left/Right demographics.

I think most people, though, see this complicated set of issues with more nuance than the absolutists like Mr. Luban and Mr. Horowitz. Let’s give our fellow citizens a little more credit, please, starting with the fact that neither absolutist side speaks for the American people or even what you call “every reasonable American”.

Repeat after me. The Mosque is NOT at ground zero.

Ittai says:

Toni — To be fair Ines did not say “Ground Zero”. And you forgot “it’s not a mosque” :-)

Framkly, I don’t see how any of this boomerang jingoism helps.

And recall: “Many Muslims fear that the mosque will become a shrine for Islamists, which would remind Americans of what Muslims did on 9/11,” Gamal Abd Al-Gawad, director of Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo, told Arab News [IH: hardly a right wing American]

rabbi shmooly says:

WASHINGTON (JTA) — The Obama administration condemned what it said was incitement by an influential Israeli rabbi.

“We regret and condemn the inflammatory statements by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Sunday in a statement.

On the eve of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, Yosef, a former chief Sephardic rabbi and the spiritual leader of the Shas Party, wished for the demise of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

“Abu Mazen and all these evil people should perish from this world,” Yosef reportedly said during his weekly Saturday night sermon at a Jerusalem synagogue, using Abbas’ byname. “God should strike them with a plague, them and these Palestinians.”

Palestinian Authority officials have asked the Israeli government to condemn the remarks. Shas is a member of the governing coalition, but Yosef has no formal government role.

“We note the Israeli statement that the Rabbi’s comments do not reflect the views of the Prime Minister.” Crowley said. “These remarks are not only deeply offensive, but incitement such as this hurts the cause of peace. As we move forward to relaunch peace negotiations, it is important that actions by people on all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it.”

U.S. officials in the past have condemned incitement by the Hamas terrorist group, which governs the Gaza Strip, and by bodies associated with the Palestinian Authority.

The Anti-Defamation League on Monday condemned Yosef’s statements as “offensive and incendiary,” cautioning that his words “contribute to a potentially dangerous environment of intolerance and hatred.”

People who don’t learn from history are doomed to live though its past tragedies. Those who oppose the construction of the Mosque are accused of being Islamophobic by the Liberals. This is another form of character assassination employed by the Liberals against anyone who may have a different opinion than they do. it is a simple minded nonsense which they have used effectively to silence their opponents akin to the bullies who are incapable of carrying on an intelligent conversation based on facts and reason therefore they resort to shouting obscenities at others to intimidate and silence them.

Islam started as as a small movement in the area known today as Saudi Arabia, it spread across other countries by means of terror and wars. Its worshipers succeeded by military means to defeat the Persian and the Byzantine Empires, the super powers of those days. Persia today is known as known as the Islamic Republic of Iran which is on its way to build an atomic bomb. How will Liberals feel if the Pope decides to build an atomic bomb to destroy the enemies of his religion?

The Byzantine empire was replaced by another Islamic state known today as Turkey. Presently there are 56 countries that are ruled according to the Islamic principals. In most cases they were invaded and brought under Islamic rule by force, which proves that Islam is not just a religion but is a conquering ideology which in recent years has acquired footsteps in the Western countries to impose its ideology there. The non-Muslims in some Islamic countries have been persecuted, massacred and driven out of their homeland. This is not a phobia, it is reality. The absurdity of rationale for supporting the building of an Islamic monument (intended to glorify the memory of the Islamic hijackers) at the ground Zero becomes obvious when one takes into account that 3000 Americans were killed to advance the same violent ideology at the same place where the murders was committed.

Jack Kaufman says:

David Horowitz, very serious;
Always in a state, always furious.
We, as people of the Book,
Pay attention to this kook.
Years ago he hated the right.
Now the left draws his spite.

The high-chair tyrant screams & yells;
How he wails, how he bellows,
“Look at me you stupid fellows.”

Have discussions with them who focus,
Wrestle with those who do engage
And skip the ones who only rage.

houteklomp says:

No matter how you look at it, nobody will be able to deny the fact that the 57 countries that belong to the dar-al-islam (run in accordance to Islamic or Sharia law) are less free, less tolerant, less educated, less developed, less secular and have less democracy, less freedom of speech, less equal opportunity for both sexes and have a lot off hate toward the free West and especially Israel and the USA. Which is all in accordance to the teachings of Islam.

Then please somebody, explain to me what on earth, if their dar-al-islam is so perfect, are these Muslims doing in the free West? Freedom, education, economic opportunity, equality and freedom of speech should not be their reason because then they would be betraying their beloved Islam. Any reason other than to spread Islam should get Muslims expelled from their religion and have them receive an automatic fatwa on their heads.

Sashland says:

The issue is not whether all people who call themselves muslins are murderous, as the accusation goes from Luban; the issue is whether islam, as an official, fundemental, and current day guide, contains within it the call for violence against others.

As a factual matter, the koran and its appendages,DO call for bigotry, dicrimination, violence, suppression, degredation, and deception. Hoowitz points out where this ideology, as correctly described by its own leaders, directly inspires the worldwide genocide in its name. Shoot the meassanger is the ostrich response.

Who are the correct muslins? The fundmentalist who quotes the exact words, calls them unchangable, and commits violence as a religious duty; or the so-called ‘moderates’ who don’t want to talk about what the book really says or honestly address the support their relgious doctrine provides for mass murderers.

Luban does himself, and the country, a disservice by ignoring and distorting Horowitz’s position and evidence. His approach is manipulative, at best, and appears to be purposely deceptive in its emotional strawman attacks.

So, if the koran and islan call for violence against others, in the current timeframe, is it a relgion worthy of protection, or is it a RICO Conspiracy furthering a criminal intent.

Let’s make it simple and stay focused:

Does the koran call for violence against others?

Does a religion that calls for violence against others deserve legal protection, or legal persecution?

How are we to understand the motivation of individuals who profess to believe in a faith that calls for violence to others, has members of that religion act-out those commands in real violence, and yet these individuals choose to stay a part of a religion the exercises violence through its members?

Luban has the burden of proof and failed to address the central issue or provide any evidence.

Many landlords will wish to confirm your references. Telephone ahead to alert potential references, including your former landlord, that they could obtain a call. Acquire some information to present to landlords/leasing brokers ? they will most likely ask for it, anyway. This could include a credit examine, a resume and pay stubs or tax returns.

DaBare2 says:

Just because I’m an Islamophobe doesn’t mean their not out to get me.

This is a classical illustration of the futility in arguing the left ideology. The unbridled arrogancy od Dan Lubin is in full display, his decline to answer any intellectual challenge by his opponent, his despicable use of his Jewishness-just sickening. If I weren’t a Jew he would make me an anti-Semite.

will edwards says:

It is a fact…not irrational meanderings of redneck idiots…the Koran specifically exhorts its followers to kill all Jews. There is no way anyone with any sense at all can overlook this fact. When applied to the circumstances we are facing today I would say… yes they are trying to kill us. I would grieve me to envision the complete destruction of Islam, but it would grieve me a lot more to face the complete destruction of everyone else. In my opinion it is way past time to destroy any and all Moslems everywhere because, again, they admit publicly there goal is to kill me and everyone else I know and/or love. Please understand any of you trying to convince me of other avenues are considered either too stupid to understand reality or are a paid agent of these horrible murderous lying pieces of human garbage. Yes… lets start with nukes then go to a clean up action

will edwards says:

it… IT would grieve me not I…

Holy shiiznt, this is so cool thank you.

These kind of post are always inspiring and I prefer to read quality content so I happy to find many first-rate point here in the post, writing is simply great, thank you for the post

[url=]casino[/url] [url=]casino online[/url] [url=]sex[/url] [url=]casino gratuiti[/url] [url=]Freelancers[/url]

I’m extremely impressed with your writing skills and also with the layout on your weblog. Is this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Either way keep up the excellent quality writing, it’s rare to see a great blog like this one these days..

I’ve said that least 4201926 times. The problem this like that is they are just too compilcated for the average bird, if you know what I mean


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Islamophobia or Reality?

A conservative activist and a liberal Tablet contributor debate whether the ‘Ground Zero mosque’ poses a threat to the United States

More on Tablet:

Cruelty & Perversity: Postprandial Reflections on the PEN Protesters

By Paul Berman — The grim satire of the ‘Charlie Hebdo’ controversy, in context