Normally we do not reply in length to articles about us, but the author of
this item must have put a lot of time into his piece, so the least we can do is to write a response.
Let us, if we may, point out a few factual errors and omissions in this article.
1. “The site’s blogger profile says that “Muslims Against Sharia” is from Afghanistan.”
One of 5 MASH members profiles actually does read Afghanistan. Initially, the default setting of Afghanistan was not changed to the USA, but then we left it as it were to allow “honest critics” to make fools of themselves. It is not surprising that the author did not mention the other four profiles.
2. “Curiously, the site contains absolutely NO membership or governance information at all.”
If the author had any brains, he/she could have realized that there are security issues involved. But an ideologue having brains, is a little too much to hope for, isn’t it?
3. “The first “donor” on the list, if you google it, turns out to be the Executive Director of the organization.”
That’s a great piece of information, except for MASH does not have an Executive Director.
4. “The second “donor”, turns out to be a member of the organization who seems to spend most of his time posting anti-Muslim taunts on various blogs.”
Anti-Muslim taunts, that’s interesting. We actually do post taunts, mostly to provoke responses, but judging by the responses we provoke
http://www.reformislam.org/quotes.php, red (bottom) section, our taunts are hardly anti-Muslim. And if we do get into an argument with Islamofascist on a rare occasion, we promptly get blocked.
5 “And here again, one is struck by the uncanny similarity between the agenda of this allegedly “Muslim” group, and that of American and European neo-nazi sites that claim to support “moderate” Muslims while actually trashing anything Islamic.”
Our motto, which is posted on the top of every page of our website is that Islam is Peace, Love, and Light. Our logo contains a crescent and a peace sign. For the author to omit those items is at the very least disingenuous, but expecting integrity from a degenerate demagogue is quite unreasonable, so we won’t focus on that.
6 “Among the elements of this “Muslim” “Manifesto” are such popular right wing talking points as “the Crusades were not unprovoked acts of aggression, but rather attempts to recapture formerly Christian lands controlled by Muslims”, and “We must remove evil passages from Islamic religious texts, so that future generations of Muslims will not be confused by conflicting messages.””
Just because the author does not like the history of the Crusades, it does not change historical facts. As for removing evil passages from Islamic religious texts, it is our original idea. Granted, someone could possibly come up with the same idea before, but we are not aware of it. But the demagoguery of the author attributes any ideas that that he/she opposes to the other side of the political spectrum.
7 “For those who don’t know John Loftus, he’s an extreme former Fox News commentator”
The author seems to know a hell of a lot about that damn extremist Loftus. Then why does he/she fail to mention that Loftus is a life-long Democrat? Or is it just Lotus’ nefarious plan to deceive Democrats? Just as non-Muslims Against Sharia have a nefarious plan to deceive Muslims?
8 “The next item in the “blog” is a press release from Joe Kaufman, of “Americans Against Hate”. You remember them? Founded by a Republican media specialist, they sponsored the nauseating “Gore-Sharpton” ads that Bill O’Reilly condemned.”
That sounded interesting and we contacted Joe Kaufman about the supposed ads. He was not aware of them. So this is another item the author just made up. Must be running out of one-sided facts.
9 “If you dig deeper into the “blog”, you’ll find ... extensive condemnation of Islam in ALL its forms, of Democrats, and of every Muslim country on the planet. In an hour of searching, I didn’t find a single entry…not one…that said anything positive about Muslims.”
Let’s dig deeper, shall we? The author must be referring to the following articles that defame Muslims and Democrats: “Islam is O.K. The Imam's are NOT!”, “Muslim hero breaks up train beating,” or “Armenian Genocide Bill” that states “Muslims Against Sharia commend House Democrats and Speaker Pelosi,” just to name a few. And if the author missed all those articles, there is a list of prominent moderate Muslims in the upper right corner of every page on our blog. But we must have placed them there just to denigrate them, right? But if that were true, why would we publish their articles on our blog?
10 “I did find this entry, which actually argues that “moderate Muslims” pose a greater threat to mankind that Jihadists.”
If the author found that entry (which was clearly posted for discussion purposes and not to imply that moderate Muslims are a threat), why not mention that it was accompanied by a MASH comment “For the record, the author does not understand what "moderate Muslim" means.”?
11 “In fact, the articles posted on the blog are once again completely indistinguishable from the sort of URQ Muslim-hatred one expects from the likes of Shaidle, McMillan, Sentinel, and the emerging neo-Nazis.”
Would “Islamonazi's Prayer for Stormfront” be one of those articles?
12 The author goes on to list some of the non-Muslim blog contributors, claiming, “So these are the “Muslims Against Sharia”” The author’s ideology prevents him/her from making a distinction between a blog contributor and a member of Muslims Against Sharia. Just as it prevents him from making a distinction between moderate Muslims and Islamofascists. But it comes as no surprise because this tactic is widely employed by degenerate demagogues, whether they are Islamofascists, left-wing Dhimmis, or right-wing nutjobs.
In case the author realizes that our reply made him look like an idiot, which demagogues usually are, and changes the contents of the article, we took screenshots.
Update (1/15): In the interest of fairness, here is a link to the next article posted by the same author:
"If You Can't Beat'em..." It seems that even a demagogue might reconsider his/her position when confronted with the facts. The key word is "might", though.
Update (1/16): While we gave the benefit of the doubt to ‘Balbulican the demagogue’, and answered all of his/her questions, he/she is still bent on proving to the world what kind of frauds we are. Lucky for us, the demagogues are usually not that bright. We figured that the best way to find out how many people consider MASH a fraud, is to run a
poll. And what do you know, our demagogue got caught lying. Below is an excerpt from our message to the fraudulent fraud-buster:
"when this
comment appeared there was only one
negative vote. Do you really expect anyone to believe that someone who runs a “StageLeft” blog would vote for Fred Thompson? Your pathetic attempt to skew the results of this poll are so transparent, it’s not even funny. We suggest next time you try to accuse someone of fraud don’t get caught perpetrating one." Our demagogue’s new life goal is to prove that MASH is a fraud. He trolls the Internet collecting quotes (which we’ll be happy to provide for years to come) that in his feeble little mind make us non-Muslims. (Apparently calling someone an idiot or a Nazi is a very un-Muslim thing to do.) The demagogue claims he/she noticed, “that even the conservative sites who initially applauded this fraud are quietly backing off”. The fact that he/she does not mention the sites in question is interesting, but what even more interesting is that how our demagogue could have noticed the "quiet backing off" of the aforementioned sites. Don't you just love to catch a smear merchant in a lie?
Update (1/21): first 100 votes are in. Under 20% of responders believe that MASH is a fraud. Considering that a comparable percentage of Americans believe that 9/11 was some type of Neocon conspiracy, the results must be pretty accurate. The fact that nearly half of Ron Paul supporters think that MASH is a fraud is not surprising. What would be is that a lot of Fred Thompson supporters seem to agree with those of Ron Paul. But this anomaly has been addressed earlier.
Posts
