When Marxist Anti-Semitic “Anti-Jihadists” Attack
Maryam Namazie is no more “anti-jihad” than Hassan Nasrallah.
(/sites/default/files/uploads/2011/08/423814.gif)Maryam Namazie, One Law For All
The One Law For All Campaign has published a new monograph, “Enemies not Allies: The Far-Right” (pdf here), which is essentially a hit piece on me, Pamela Geller, our organization Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), which is actually a program of our American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), our sister group Stop Islamisation of Europe (SIOE), and several groups that we have never had anything to do with, such as the British National Party, which we have consistently denounced.
Not coincidentally, One Law For All is headed up by Maryam Namazie, a Marxist anti-Semite who claims to be anti-jihad but actually has attacked Israel and spread Palestinian jihad propaganda on numerous occasions. An anti-jihadist who doesn’t support the country on the front lines of the global jihad? Pull my other leg.
In the new report, Namazie includes one quote from me that has long circulated, and misrepresents its meaning – and in light of the intense demonization that is going on lately, I thought it worthwhile to clarify it. This is the quote:
‘There is no distinction in the American Muslim community between peaceful Muslims and jihadists. While Americans prefer to imagine that the vast majority of American Muslims are civic-minded patriots who accept wholeheartedly the parameters of American pluralism, this proposition has actually never been proven.’ - Robert Spencer, Stop Islamization of America
The report adds:
The group’s American branch, currently run by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, was set up by SIOE’s leadership. In 2010 Spencer defended his and Geller’s ‘colleague’ Joseph John Jay, who had recommended the ‘wholesale slaughter’ of Muslim civilians, including children. Spencer has also written that there is ‘no distinction’ between American Muslims and Jihadists, and explained that Muslims must prove their innocence or else be considered guilty. Pamela Geller’s web log has featured conspiratorial articles regarding the President of America’s religion, his family, his sexual history, and the circumstances of his birth. Geller and Spencer have also defended Serbian war criminals.
John Jay does not actually have any role in or position with SIOA, but be that as it may, the report is lying about him. In reality, he has written, in his inimitable fashion, “i do not advocate carte blanche killing one’s liberal relative, nor all muslims. to assert differently is a lie.”
Likewise false is the claim that “Spencer has also written that there is ‘no distinction’ between American Muslims and Jihadists, and explained that Muslims must prove their innocence or else be considered guilty.”
This is based on the quote from me above. Yet not only is that not what the quote means, but I have said just the opposite. See, to take one of many examples, here, where I say, in connection with mosques getting extra police protection, “This is a nation of laws, not vigilantes, and the principle of innocent until proven guilty still holds and must hold.” And here, where I said that “everyone is innocent until proven guilty” and “many Muslims are not on board with this supremacist program.”
What I am saying in the quote is that the “extremists” are not one sect and the “moderates” another, such that they go to different mosques and have no truck with one another. In fact, they are all mixed up together, as numerous jihad plots in the US show – the jihadist turns out to have attended a local mosque, which quickly disavows him. This is simply a fact. What exactly is either false or racist about that?
As for the smears of Pamela Geller regarding Obama, and of Pamela and me regarding defending Serbian war criminals, Pamela Geller ably answers them here, and I have more on the Serbs and related matters here. For dishonest people and jihad-supporters, opposition to the jihad in the Balkans and skepticism about some of the charges made of Serbian war crimes equals support for Serbian war crimes. That is absurd and baseless.
In reality, all we stand for and have ever stood for are the principles of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for all people.
If Maryam Namazie’s One Law For All claims to oppose the jihad while attacking anti-jihadists and supporting the genocidal jihad against Israel, then it is simply a false-flag operation. Maryam Namazie and One Law For All are no more anti-jihad than Hassan Nasrallah.
I have emailed Maryam Namazie asking that she retract and apologize for her false claim that I think that Muslims should be considered guilty until proven innocent. I will not be waiting by the phone.