The Huffington Post is, once again, shilling for jihad, abridgement of our freedoms and the sanction of the blasphemy laws under the sharia. And yet they never publish pro-freedom, pro-American, pro-individualist voices to counter this vicious propaganda.
Michael Shank is adjunct professor at George Mason University's School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, board member of the National Peace Academy, and senior fellow at the French American Global Forum. He is also a dhimmi tool (like so many other academics today). In an attack piece on my American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) pro-freedom ad in the Huffington Post, he says nothing of the horrors of jihad, but feigns outrage when not everyone refuses to confirm to the left's self-enforcement of sharia blasphemy laws that forbid any criticism of Islam.
My ad says: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad." Shank begins by comparing this ad to all sorts of odious things: "If someone got physically violent on the Metro in Washington DC, they would get kicked off the train or bus. Similarly, if someone indecently exposed him or herself (as noted in the new Metro ads threatening action against indecent exposure) or yelled incendiary, racist or bigoted comments at riders, they would get ushered off." He complains that "the ad makes a sweeping generalization about all Muslims, referring to them as savages and contrasting the savages with the civilized."
Yet any war on innocent civilians is savage. Like so many other leftist tools, Shank is reading into my ad the idea that "all Muslims" are savages who want to destroy Israel. That is nowhere in my message. They are the ones who are assuming that to talk about jihadist savages is to talk about all Muslims, which means that they are the Islamophobes and racists. The rush to assure the world that the "Palestinian" jihadists are not savages amazes me. The war on Israel is a war on innocent civilians. The targeting of civilians is savage. The relentless 60-year campaign of terror against the Jewish people is savage. The torture of hostage Gilad Shalit was savage. The bloody hacking to death of the Fogel family was savage. The Munich Olympic massacre was savage. The unspeakable torture of Ehud Goldwasser was savage. The tens of thousands of rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel (into schools, homes, etc.) are savage. The vicious Jew-hatred behind this genocide is savage. The endless demonization of the Jewish people in the Palestinian and Arab media is savage. The refusal to recognize the state of Israel as a Jewish state is savage. The list is endless.
"It is paradoxical," says Shank. "The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) can prohibit riders from listening to loud music or consuming food or drink -- the former of which is ostensibly out of respect for others, the latter is because of health and cleanliness concerns -- and yet it cannot prohibit vitriolic ads, which hurt and harm and are unhealthy."
Yes, it cannot prohibit our pro-freedom ads because of that inconvenient thing known as the First Amendment.
Shank claims that "since the ad makes no distinction between the majority of Muslims who use jihad nonviolently and the small minority of Muslims who use violence and cite jihad as their defense, the ad intentionally creates a hyper-polarized, good-versus-evil frame through which to understand Islam."
Actually, it is Shank who is making no distinction between peaceful Muslims and violent ones. My ad doesn't mention Muslims at all. It only mentions savage jihadists. For him to assume that by referring to them I mean to refer to all Muslims reveals his own "Islamophobia." And he gets even worse:
Nor does the AFDI ad make any distinction between the greater, internally oriented jihad, known as Akbar jihad, or the lesser externally oriented Asghar jihad. The former is an internal struggle that instructs a Muslim believer to be more righteous and pious; the latter is an external struggle that instructs a Muslim to defend against religious persecution. Neither is explicitly instructed to be violent and for the AFDI ad to intimate that anything jihad -- and thus anything Muslim -- is savage and must be defeated, the ad categorically calls all Muslims savages.
Islamic scholar Robert Spencer sets the record straight here. He explains what "was pointed out by the 14th-century Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyya: that the concept of the 'greater jihad' [Akbar jihad] as interior spiritual struggle is based on a hadith that 'has no source and nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic knowledge has narrated it.' Ibn Taymiyya insists that 'jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind.' Nor is this his view alone. Jihad understood as warfare against unbelievers in order to establish the hegemony of Islamic law has much greater support in Islamic scripture, tradition, and historical practice than does the spiritual jihad -- and leading jihad theorists including Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Abdullah Azzam, Osama bin Laden's friend and intellectual mentor and co-founder with him of Al-Qaeda, challenge the authenticity of the 'greater jihad' saying in their writings....A Shafi'i manual of Islamic law that in 1991 was certified by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo's Al-Azhar University, as conforming 'to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.' This manual, 'Umdat al-Salik (available in English as Reliance of the Traveller), spends a considerable amount of time explaining jihad as 'war against non-Muslims.' It spells out the nature of this warfare in quite specific terms, saying that the Muslims must wage 'war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.'"
After spreading this nonsense about the greater jihad and the lesser jihad, Shank then whines that the free speech argument wouldn't have applied were it not for America's "Islamophobia": "The freedom of speech argument is spurious. Why? Because if it were a different race or religion we'd have a whole different conversation and a lot more public protest. America has a racist and discriminatory political pecking order that allows some prejudice to continue while prohibiting others."
This is so ridiculous it made me laugh. In fact, authorities going all the way up to Obama's DoJ bend over backwards to accommodate Muslims. Insults to no other group have ever occasioned serious discussion in mainstream American publications about restrictions on the freedom of speech. And if those restrictions come, Michael Shank will welcome them -- until his Islamic supremacist masters reveal their true face, that is. But by then it will be too late for Shank. He will have served his purpose.