DAVID HOROWITZ TAKES ON MUSLIM STUDENTS AT BROOKLYN COLLEGE

DAVID HOROWITZ TAKES ON MUSLIM STUDENTS AT BROOKLYN COLLEGE

BY: FERN SIDMAN

Exceptionally heavy security prevailed at Brooklyn College on Thursday evening, March 10th, as conservative commentator, prolific author and founder of the FrontPage Mag web site, David Horowitz, delivered a lecture in response to the propaganda being promulgated by the organizers of Israeli Apartheid Week on campus.

Over 150 people gathered at the college library auditorium to listen to Mr. Horowitz's speech entitled the "Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Myths and Facts" and was sponsored and organized by Brooklyn College student Yosef Sobel and Mitchell Langbert, an associate professor in the department of business and economics. "Because the Hillel organization on campus was too afraid to sponsor me, I must thank those who had the courage to do so." said Mr. Horowitz. Despite numerous warnings prohibiting verbal disruptions, bellicose Muslim student hecklers abounded and Mr. Horowitz's remarks were often punctuated by the sounds of acrimonious, ad hominem attacks.

A native New Yorker and a graduate of Columbia University, David Horowitz has led a polemical existence as a one-time self proclaimed Marxist and a former left-wing academic whose political beliefs have now shifted to the right. As one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s, he was also the editor of its most influential magazine, Ramparts. Along with Peter Collier, he is the author of a number of best-selling dynastic biographies on the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, the Fords, and the Roosevelts. With Collier he also wrote "Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the 60s" (1989), a chronicle of their break with the 1960s Left, that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers' "Witness" and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism.

Through the work of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, he champions an array of causes including the defense of the principles of individual freedom as well as the preservation of free societies in the war against the values inherent to Western civilization and the reestablishment of academic freedom in American schools. His recent books include, "Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left" (2004), "Indoctrination U: The Left's War Against Academic Freedom" (2007) and "Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party" (2007).

Making oblique references to the security of Israel, Mr. Horowitz began by ruefully observing, "When I went to college you didn't need all of this security on campus, but things have changed and that's the reason we now need checkpoints on campuses. Checkpoints are essential to defend against terrorists and Jew haters."

Adding that he has been verbally and physically assaulted on campuses around the country for his forthright views, he said, "Our campuses are controlled by liberal fascists and it is a movement to suppress the free speech rights of conservatives. He said that the International Socialist Organization, a Marxist organization, is culpable for creating an academic climate of intimidation and hate. "It is they who spread lies about me and work with their Muslim allies towards the mobilization of radical jihad against the West. The Muslim community needs to stand up and defend democracy in this country and that's what we're all waiting for."

Providing a historical backdrop to the Middle East conflict, Mr. Horowitz said, "There was no Palestine since the days of the Roman conquest of the land of Israel and there certainly was no Palestine in 1946. The war against the Jews started in the form of Pan Arab nationalism and the PLO was created by the KBG. They advised Arafat that the best way to succeed is to play the victim role and say that all they want is their own state and that Israel is occupying Palestine." Saying that the entire region around the Jordan River was created by imperialist powers such as the Ottoman Empire, he intoned that, "Israel was not built on Arab land."

Declaring that he is a "political Zionist", Mr. Horowitz said he believes that the Jewish people have a right to exist and have a right to their own state. Equating such terrorist organizations as Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Islamic Republic of Iran as "Nazis in the Middle East", he said that their objective is "not to create a Palestinian state but rather, to push the Jews into the sea" because they can't live alongside a people of another faith. "In 1922, 80 percent of the land of Israel was ceded to become the state of Transjordan that is now ruled by the Hashemite kingdom and there are more Palestinians in Jordan than in Israel", he said, adding that their calls for a Palestinian homeland are eclipsed by their desire to eradicate Israel.

"Democracy is a threat to political Islam and they believe that everyone who is not a Muslim is an infidel and is deserving of death. The Christian population of Bethlehem once stood at 80 percent and is now 12 percent because of Islamic influence," he said.

Addressing the subject of Israeli Apartheid Week on over 55 campuses across North America, Mr. Horowitz said, "Muslims have more rights in Israel than they have in any Arab country in the world" and called the notion of Israel as a state that practices apartheid as "disgusting". Pointing to the sheer hypocrisy of such egregious and fraudulent accusations, Mr. Horowitz said, "If you want to know what real religious and gender apartheid is just look at the entire Muslim Middle East, and not Israel."

Speaking of the political realities in the aftermath of World War II, he said, "12 million ethnic Germans were purged from Poland, but after the state of Israel was established, no one expelled the Arabs, hoping that one day rationality would take hold, but it never did." He said that such organizations as the Muslim Students Association and the Islamic Society of North America who are the chief sponsors of Israeli Apartheid Week are "fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood" and are "hate organizations" that make campuses unwelcome for Jewish students. On campuses around the country, he said, the organizers of Israeli Apartheid Week erect an "apartheid wall" and proffered the idea that "a wall of lies" be built to counter their pervasive myths and distortions of the truth. Speaking of the well known Saudi Arabian funding of Middle East Studies departments at Western universities, Mr. Horowitz suggested that this is the impetus for the inextricable links between Muslim organizations and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Calling the expulsion of close to 10,000 Jews from Gaza in the summer of 2005 as part of the disengagement a "mistake", Mr. Horowitz said, "a normal people in a normal state would never have done so, but would have driven out the 1.2 million Arabs because they are possessed by hate as manifested in their violent destruction of the thriving horticultural industry that the Jewish population had created there and their incessant rocket assaults on such towns as Sderot."

Taking aim at the ubiquitous political zeitgeist that views the Palestinians as a nation of oppressed refugees, Mr. Horowitz intoned, "No people have shown themselves as so morally sick as the Palestinians", adding that, "In the history of all mankind, there was never a people who strapped bombs on their bodies and killed innocent people. No other people have sunk so low as the Palestinians and everyone is afraid to say it." Describing Islam as a religion possessed by "hate, violence and racism", he said that a resolution to the protracted Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio could is not beyond reach. "If you disarm the Palestinians in the Middle East there will be peace, but if you disarm the Jews there will be further death and destruction."

"How is it that Jews do not get the narrative?" he queried. "The Palestinians are suffering, but it is not by the hand of the Jew, but rather their true oppressors are Hamas and Hezbollah" he said. Calling the Palestinian Authority a "terrorist government", Mr. Horowitz said, "when we see hate we must call it so, we must label the enemy as who they are". "The Palestinians don't want peace. How can you negotiate with those who won't recognize Israel's right to exist? Look what happened to those Arab leaders that have tried to establish peace with Israel. They were assassinated by radical Islamist elements."

Extolling the idea that "jihadist murderers" are tantamount to "Nazis and blatant Jew haters", he said although they may appear to be perfectly decent, nice people, a great many of them support Osama Bin Ladin and like minded genocidal murderers. "Hitler did not publicly announce his 'final solution' in the fear that the German people were too civilized to accept it, but Ahmadinejad proudly and publicly announces his version of the 'final solution' and no Islamists condemn him. To the contrary, they cheer him on and embrace his vision."

Challenging the belief that America is an Islamophobic country, Mr. Horowitz said, "Muslims are treated with kid gloves in America and are a protected species." He said that 8 to 10 times more hate crimes are committed against Jews than there are against Muslim in America. Pointing to the case of the Holyland Foundation, a purported Islamic charity that was found guilty of funding terrorism on the West Bank by their direct contributions to Hamas, Mr. Horowitz said that the unindicted co-conspirators in this case were the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and that there has been "no significant condemnation of this group or others of this ilk". He unabashedly condemned Hamas as a "fanatically religious, Jew hating, America hating, Nazi organization."

During the question and answer period, a male Muslim student implied that a witch-hunt cabal was taking place and drew a parallel between Mr. Horowitz and the late Senator Joseph McCarthy, adding that Horowitz was a racist. When asked by Mr. Horowitz if the student would condemn Hamas, the student refused to do so, but proceeded to engage in further equivocation. Referring to Mr. Horowitz as an "ignorant racist" a female Muslim student who identified herself only as Magdalene said, "he has no proof of anything that he's said here tonight", adding that women in Muslim countries are "not persecuted by the rules of Sharia law but by draconian dictators who serve American political puppets."

According to Lauren Kunis, a pro-Israel supporter who sought entry into the auditorium but was denied, "I had wanted to bring my Israeli flag in with me and was told by the Brooklyn College security that I couldn't. I told them that I'd wear the flag around my neck as the Arab members of the audience were wearing keffiyahs around their necks. I was then strong armed out by an African American security guard, who I've learned is the Brooklyn College deputy director of security. She accused me of making a ruckus and then called other police officers to escort me to the gate and out of the college. Seems like anyone who takes a proud pro-Israel position is considered a troublemaker and an enemy on campuses today."

David Horowitz: The Anti-Semitic Jihad On Campus: My Night at USC

[Editor's note: Protected by a bodyguard and twelve armed campus security officers, David Horowitz spoke at the University of Southern California on November 4, 2009. This is a text of his remarks, edited for readability. A video of the speech is available here. To read about the efforts to censor him before the speech and the slander directed at him, click here.]

I want to thank the College Republicans for being brave enough to invite me, and I want to thank all of you who are here to actually listen for coming.

It used to be a pleasure for me to speak on a college campus like USC. I can remember the days when I could stroll onto the USC campus and walk over to the statue of Tommy Trojan where College Republicans had erected a platform for a rally to support our troops in Afghanistan after 9/11 at which I was to speak.

Now, however, I can’t set foot on this campus – or any campus – without being accompanied by a personal bodyguard and a battalion of armed campus security police to protect me and my student hosts.

Sheer prudence forces me to visit campuses with these security measures in place because I’ve been demonized by the campus left at virtually every school I’ve visited in the past decade and physically assaulted at several.

USC officials regard the threats against this event seriously enough to have assigned twelve armed officers to watch over the proceedings.

These police are not here to protect you from me. They are here to protect me from you members of the USC Progressive Alliance, Students for Justice in Palestine and the USC Muslim Student Union who have made these threats and incited hatred towards this event and its speaker. These are the tactics favored by fascists – and when I use that word I mean it literally. I don’t use it the way the Left does, as an epithet for anyone they don’t like.

The attacks on this event and those organizing it are part of a national hate campaign that the left has organized against me and others who share my views. It can be tracked on numerous websites over nearly a decade and is evidenced in the common themes of slander and abuse that are directed towards me.

The left’s campaign – really a declaration of war — is in part a response to my opposition to its anti-American, anti-democratic and anti-Semitic agendas. Consequently I accept their attacks as features of this battlefield, signature methods of leftist argument. But the College Republicans on this campus have been caught in this crossfire.

These students pay the same tuition as the political thugs who are on the attack and who are supported by the USC student paper which is under the control of USC administrators, and they do not deserve to be treated this way. Nor should a university administrator lend legitimacy to modes of discourse which violate the published ethical standards of the institution he represents.

In its attack the USC Progressive Alliance put out a flyer containing gross fabrications which are central to its campaign of slander against this event and the students hosting it. The flyer’s headline reads: “Hate Muslims? So Do We.” It pretends to be a document issued by College Republicans. In fact they had nothing to do with it, while the sentiment it expresses is reprehensible to them.

The deception isn’t even original. Two years ago an identical flyer was posted all over the George Washington University campus when I spoke there during an Islamofascism Awareness Week I had organized. This “Hate Muslims? So Do We” poster bore the forged signature of the Young America’s Foundation, which was the group that was sponsoring my speech at George Washington U.

When the president of the University became aware of the poster he was so outraged that he sent emissaries to dorm rooms of the leaders of the Young America’s Foundation at eight in the morning to summon them to his office where he threatened them with expulsion. They explained to him that they had absolutely nothing to do with the offense and didn’t hate Muslims but the president’s threat remained.

That night he convened a campus meeting to deplore the attack. As you know there is a new religion on college campuses based on the idea that there are endangered human species that need to be protected – all of them conveniently championed by the left as groups that are oppressed. In fact the only oppressed and persecuted groups on college campuses are those under attack from the left — campus conservatives, Christians and Jews. That’s the reality, in contrast to the rhetoric.

Read it all at FPM

Semantic Confusion: “The Religious Right”, Allies or Antagonists?

The Confusion of Tongues

or

“What You Said Ain’t What They Heard”

(Guy DeWhitney) This was published a couple months ago at David Horowitz's NewsRealblog.com because a number "Conservative Christians" had objected to the venom someone else had directed toward "The Religious Right." The commentary response was enormous and spirited, with the consensus agreeing with almost all of my proposal.)

I have noticed lately a serious impediment to any real communication across political lines. It is something that can affect anyone writing or speaking about politics in America today. The problem lies in the term “Religious Right”.

On the one hand Conservative Christians do not seem to understand that non-Christians, many just as conservative see the term as a negative if not a pejorative. On the other hand non-Christians, Moderates, Liberals and Leftists do not seem to “get it” that many sane, un-hypocritical Conservative Christians define themselves with that same term.

When used by the middle/left the term virtually NEVER seems to mean anything BUT a classic, Right-wing “I’m right because the Bible says so, you can’t be moral without Jesus, this is a Christian Nation and non-Christians should not be allowed to influence schools and government” hypocrite-in-Christian’s-clothing” sort of person.

To say that this confusion impedes communication, compassion and compromise would be an understatement of monumental proportions.

Because of this confusion we recently saw Chris Mathews of MSNBC using the term in one way and offending NRB Columnist Paul Cooper who uses it in another. Paul responded by light of his definition which caused me to misunderstand and I started to type a flaming reply. Then I found out what Paul really meant by it; “those to the Right of middle who are Christian”.

The end result was that we barely missed getting in an argument over nothing. Both of us would have felt attacked by and embittered toward someone who should be an ally on the subject.

This problem in definitions needs to be resolved in order for NewsReal Blog to have any chance of changing partisans into partners on issues that affect all of us.

The last few days I have been asking everyone I can who THEY think of when they hear the term “Religious Right”.

Overwhelmingly those that did not self describe as Conservative Christians seem to believe the term to mean “the folks who believe being Christian gives them a preferred political status and the right to impose an overtly Christian character on civil society”.

Not one person I talked to that described themselves as moderate or liberal (regardless of their religion) saw the term as referring to any other group. ONLY the Conservative Christians I spoke with felt that it meant the “Right side of the spectrum of all religious Christians in the U.S.”

It is pretty clear that this confusion cannot be allowed to go on. As a start I propose a poll. Not a “vote” for one definition by majority rule, but simply a poll to make us aware of Who Thinks What Means Which.

Semantics Poll: Who Do You Call What?
(Actual Poll is at Heretics Crusade, please add your vote!)

I Self Identify As:

a) Non-religious (Atheist, Agnostic, Don’t Care)
b) A Nominal Christian
c) A Devout Christian (Liberal Politics)
d) A Devout Christian (Conservative Politics)
e) Jewish (Conservative politics)
f) Jewish (Liberal politics)
g) A Conservative Christian or Jewish far to the Right of the ones the public calls conservative. (“They call me Nut-case but Jesus/G*d will bless me for it”)
h) A Nominal Muslim
i) A Devout Muslim
j) A Devout Muslim (“They call me Terrorist but Allah(pbuh) will bless me for it!”)

To Me “Religious Right” Means:

A) Conservative Religious persons; i.e. devout religious people of any faith that fall to the Right of Middle in politics
B) Religious hypocrites that believe the “unquestionable Truth” of their religion gives them a preferred position in the political process. (This description fits not only Christian chauvinists but also Islamic Supremacists etc.)
C) Conservative Christians who use their religion as a guide in life. Including politics.
D) Same as B but limited to Christians
E) Something Else

The information this poll provides may well prove very valuable but we still need to agree on what the term means here at Muslims Against Sharia.

I feel that being understood accurately by the largest number of people is more important than being clear only to compatriots. I cannot see that preaching to the choir is very productive. Therefore I propose this array of definitions:

For (A) I think the term “Religious Conservative” would be less likely to be misunderstood.

The subset of people described by (B) can be called “Religious Radicals” or “Theocrats”.

For (C) I can see no reason not to simply use “Christian Conservative” since it is clear and self-explanatory.

We should try to refer to (D) as “The Religious Right”.

Being clear with how we use these terms may not solve all our differences but, it will certainly not hurt our efforts to resolve them.

"Language is Humanity Beating Broken Rhythms On a Pot With a Spoon While Believing We Make Music That Stirs the Heart of God"

Guy DeWhitney

Source: Guy DeWhitney's Heretics Crusade

Getting to the Root of Understanding Islam

Few would consider Robert Spencer, author and prominent scholar of Islam, to be a radical.

Spencer’s politics fit snuggly within the mainstream of conservative thought. He appears regularly at both Human Events and FrontPage Magazine. His books are published by the stalwart conservative press Regnery.

His rhetoric and demeanor are hardly radical either. Read his books and you’ll find sly, witty humor to complement his often depressing subject matter. His talks are no different. He presents a friendly demeanor. Here’s an example from the recent Restoration Weekend:

So in what manner is Spencer possessed of the Radical Spirit?

To understand this we need to understand what it means to be radical. The first definition of the term (coming from its etymology) sums it up: “Arising from or going to a root or source.”

Thus Spencer’s radicalism soon becomes clear to those familiar with his books and his essential blog, JihadWatch. His principle project is this: to go to the root of understanding Islam. To strip away the obfuscations of the Left and alleged “moderate” Islamist apologists and to really demonstrate just what this religion is all about.

And so his newest book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran is in a sense his most radical work yet. In the past Spencer has hit numerous Islam-related topics. Last year’s Stealth Jihad looked at how many Islamists have shifted tactics from violence to quiet subversion. Previous books focused on Muhammad and the differences between Islam and Christianity.

Now he examines the Koran itself. In twelve accessible chapters – each interspersed with sidebars and quotes in Idiot’s Guide fashion – Spencer gives a crash course on the Koran’s origins, its interpretation and its contents. He explains how the book was assembled and why it’s so difficult to understand. (It’s not even written chronologically!) He also shows how pervasively anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, intolerant, and violent attitudes are embedded within this book revered by more than a billion people.

The experience of reading The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran brought to mind two other “radical” texts, each exploring a different kind of faith.

The first is Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts about the Sixties, the classic critique of the New Left by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. Destructive Generation is a dense book that overwhelms with the sheer number, variety, and intensity of its facts and arguments. One completes it almost exhausted. Spencer’s Infidel’s Guide produces a similar effect. The author packs his text with so many quotes from the Koran, the Hadith, and prominent Muslim commentators that it’s profoundly difficult to argue with him. (Which perhaps explains why the usual anti-Spencer retort is to slur him as a bigot and not bother to even quote him.)

The second is this year’s Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them) by agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman. The new book by the author of Misquoting Jesus and God’s Problem provided a more thoughtful alternative to critiquing religion than the Christopher Hitchens/Richard Dawkins militant atheism.

Spencer’s approach to the Koran is identical to Ehrman’s to the New Testament. He’s a nonbeliever who seeks to look at a holy text critically, examining how it was made and what the text itself actually says – not how it’s allegedly divine and infallible. Yet why is Spencer the “bigot” of the two? Why is it acceptable to look at Christianity critically but “racist” to do so for Islam? Why have we built an advantage to our enemies right into the fabric of our “politically correct” culture?

And it’s here where we return to understanding Spencer as a radical. Because Spencer is not just a radical intellectual – willing to take an idea to its root no matter how maligned the left-dominated intellectual culture might make him. He’s also a radical activist. Consider another of the American Heritage Dictionary’s definitions of radical: “One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions.”

Possessed of the conservative’s understanding of human nature and loyalty to individual liberty he knows the only way one can both effectively and morally change society is to change people’s ideas. And so the “fundamental or revolutionary change” that he advocates is a revision in the way Americans understand Islam.

Let us support him as he pursues this intellectual revolution. Our very society is dependent upon its success.

FPM

Radical Analysis for a Radical Religion, Parts 1, 2 & 3: An Intellectual Revolution to Save the American Revolution

Click here for Part 1 and here for Part 2

The experience of reading The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran brought to mind two other “radical” texts, each exploring a different kind of faith.

The first is Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts about the Sixties, the classic critique of the New Left by Peter Collier and David Horowitz.

Destructive Generation is a dense book that overwhelms with the sheer number, variety, and intensity of its facts and arguments. One completes it almost exhausted.

Spencer’s Infidel’s Guide produces a similar effect. The author packs his text with so many quotes from the Koran, the Hadith, and prominent Muslim commentators that it’s profoundly difficult to argue with him. (Which perhaps explains why the usual anti-Spencer retort is to slur him as a bigot and not bother to even quote him.)

The second is this year’s Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them) by agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman. The new book by the author of Misquoting Jesus and God’s Problem provided a more thoughtful alternative to critiquing religion than the Christopher Hitchens/Richard Dawkins militant atheism.

Spencer’s approach to the Koran is identical to Ehrman’s to the New Testament. He’s a nonbeliever who seeks to look at a holy text critically, examining how it was made and what the text itself actually says – not how it’s allegedly divine and infallible.

Yet why is Spencer the “bigot” of the two? Why is it acceptable to look at Christianity critically but “racist” to do so for Islam? Why have we built an advantage to our enemies right into the fabric of our “politically correct” culture?

And it’s here where we return to understanding Spencer as a radical. Because Spencer is not just a radical intellectual – willing to take an idea to its root no matter how maligned the left-dominated intellectual culture might make him.

He’s also a radical activist. Consider another of the American Heritage Dictionary’s definitions of radical: “One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions.”

Possessed of the conservative’s understanding of human nature and loyalty to individual liberty he knows the only way one can both effectively and morally change society is to change people’s ideas. And so the “fundamental or revolutionary change” that he advocates is a revision in the way Americans understand Islam.

Let us support him as he pursues this intellectual revolution. Our very society is dependent upon its success.

NewsReal Blog

The Islamic War On Freedom At USC

Editor’s Note: See David Horowitz’s previous blogs on the Islamist war on Freedom at America’s colleges here, here, here, and here.

Tomorrow I am scheduled to speak at the University of Southern California. The focus of my speech will be the genocidal incitement of the prophet Mohammed that calls on Muslims to exterminate the Jews as the condition of their redemption:

“The hour of judgment will only come when Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, when the Jews hide behind the rocks and the trees, and the rocks and the trees cry out, ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’”

The sayings of the prophet Mohammed — hadith — were complied 200 years after his death. A reasonable Muslim, a modern Muslim, could easily conclude that this hateful incitement is apocryphal and should be removed from the sacred canon. In fact there is a Turkish commission that has taken up the task of sorting out authentic sayings of the prophet from the inauthentic.

Unfortunately, Turkey has become an Islamofascist state in full-throated support of the war against the Jews and it is too much to expect that the Islamic authorities in Turkey will do anything about this hadith.

Worse, this hateful incitement is posted on the official USC website. It was originally put there by the USC Muslim Student Union which, like other organizations affiliated with the Muslim Student Association (MSA) is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, a supporter of the Islamic jihad against the infidels and specifically of its war against the Jews.

When we became aware of the offensive posting of this saying of the prophet Mohammed we took steps that led to its removal by the USC provost who called it “disgusting.” The removal was met by a protest from the MSA and other organizations that are part of the terrorist network including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) who called its removal religious discrimination.

But the USC administration held its ground. Recently, however, the hadith of hate reappeared on the USC website, this time put there by an organization called the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement (CMJE). Â USC College Republicans have petitioned the USC administration to remove the hadith.

Meanwhile, the supporters of Islamic terror at USC — Students for Justice in Palestine and the USC Progressive Alliance (fascist alliance would be more accurate) — have put out hate propaganda against me and are attempting to shut down my speech, thus repeating the war against free speech that the Muslim Brotherhood network conducted two weeks ago at Temple when we presented the film Fitna and Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.

The Progressive Alliance flier consists of a quote attributed to me which is entirely invented. It’s even written in Osama Bin Laden speak (”while having the body of the human being, a Moslem who unquestioningly follows the Quran behaves like a soulless beast.”) and in style alone represents nothing that I have ever written, said or believed.

Students for Justice in Palestine put out a similar smear sheet last week which was somewhat more (or is it less?) creative in presenting my alleged positions as the opposite of what I actually believe. I wrote a response to that attack and submitted it to the USC Daily Trojan, which has yet to print it:

To USC College Republicans, USC Hillel, USC Students for Justice in Palestine, and anyone concerned:

A campus activist by the name of Alex Sham, whose organization is a supporter of genocide against the Jewish state and of the Hamas terrorists and of the general terrorist jihad against Israel and the United States, has sent a malicious slander to Facebook, and apparently intends to conduct a campaign to demonize me in advance of my speech at USC. Sham’s disgraceful post makes a series of ugly charges against me — not a single one of which has any basis in anything I have ever actually said.

For example:

I have never said that blacks have benefited from slavery or that they should express gratitude for being enslaved. There is no such statement of mine to that effect anywhere which is why Sham does not quote an actual statement of mine but merely makes up what he thinks I said.

I have never said that "Muslim student groups are designed to bring jihad to America.” I have made statements about one such group and only one – the Muslim Students Association – which supports annual protests against the very existence of the Jewish state (an act in itself of genocide by any reasonable definition of the term,) and which regularly hosts speakers who support the terrorist jihad against Israel and the West, call for the execution of gays, and support regimes such as the Islamic Republic of Iran which executes gays.

I have never made a statement that “blacks slit throats.” I have made one remark about one black — O.J. Simpson — who did slit his wife’s throat.

And so on.

I am not a racist and I am not an Islamophobe. I have organized protests on more than 100 college campuses against the oppression of Muslim women.

I have published booklets against the oppression of Muslim women and I have sponsored panels with Muslim speakers against the oppression of Muslim women.

There are numerous videos of my campus speeches on the web where I can be seen saying that my efforts are not directed against all Muslims but are in fact conducted in behalf of most Muslims against the hijacking of their religion by totalitarian radicals (who are supported by Students for Justice in Palestine.)

It is evil to pretend to speak in the name of all Muslims when you are conducting a campaign of hatred against Jews and gays and other minority groups.

In his email, Sham threatens to attack my speech by any means necessary. Presumably this is also a threat by Students for Justice in Palestine whose members at Berkeley and other places have been arrested on campus in the past for breaking the law. This kind of threat is an expression of the fascist mentality for which Students for Justice in Palestine is rightly famous.

I hope members of the USC community will appeal to university officials to see that civility and order are maintained around this event, and that Students for Justice in Palestine are put on notice that this kind of anti-intellectual and uncivil behavior is unacceptable.

David Horowitz

What is taking place on our campuses is a jihad against our First Amendment freedom.

It is an attempt to silence anyone critical of the Islamic war against the Jews. Responsible Muslims will condemn the unholy alliance of Muslim fascists and their left-wing collaborators which is conducting this war and which is led by the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, the Muslim Students Assocation, Students for Justice in Paletine and the Progressive Alliance.

NewsReal Blog

Jihad at Temple

By David Horowitz

The Temple Muslim Students Association is attempting to shut down the scheduled appearance of Geert Wilders on October 20. As part of its Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, and its campaign to Stop the Campus War Against Israel and the Jews, the David Horowitz Freedom Center is sponsoring appearances by Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders at Temple and Columbia universities (October 20 and 21). The Muslim Students Association has issued a statement condemning the event and calling on the Temple Administration to close it down. The MSA statement can be found at the end of this post. The David Horowitz Freedom Center statement follows:

David Horowitz Freedom Center Response to the Muslim Students Association

The Temple Muslim Students Association has issued a call to the Temple University administration to censor the forthcoming campus appearance of Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders on the 20th of October, which is sponsored by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. The Temple administration should reject this attack on the First Amendment rights of all members of the Temple community. Read more ...

Source: FMP
MSA
Latest recipients of the Distinguished Islamofascist Award

Horowitz Speech on Radical Islam Has Repercussions at Northwestern

Correction: The article below incorrectly states: "Imam Zaid Shakir, who co-founded the Islamic fundamentalist mosque Masjid al-Islam in Oakland, California." As Mr. Shakir pointed out, he co-founded an Islamic fundamentalist mosque Masjid al-Islam in New Haven, Connecticut. We thank Mr. Shakir for providing correct information.

---

Muslim-cultural Students Association spends $21,000 to bring Bill Ayers to campus in response to Horowitz appearance; Hoax comments on Horowitz speech appear on campus newspaper website.

Less than a week after defaming David Horowitz by claiming that he spreads “blatant lies about Islam” and criticizing the College Republicans for “bringing such an offensive and divisive speaker” to campus, the Muslim-cultural Students Association (McSA) at Northwestern has announced plans to bring infamous Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers to campus.

In her letter to the Daily Northwestern, McSA co-president Dana Shabeeb criticized Horowitz for attacking the Muslim Students Association (which was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood) as supporters of jihad. “Let me make clear that Muslims vehemently reject the use of violence in the name of our religion and don't support the killing of innocent civilians for any reason,” she stated. Yet the McSA has now chosen to spend a vast sum of student government funding on a speaker who dedicated a book to the assassin of Robert Kennedy and is best known for being a co-founder of a terrorist organization and has publicly stated that he does not regret setting bombs and in fact “we did not do enough.”

The McSA plans to spend its entire Fall speakers budget of $21,000 to fund the event which features Ayers along with his wife and fellow Weather Underground member Bernadine Dohrn and Muslim radical, Imam Zaid Shakir, who co-founded the Islamic fundamentalist mosque Masjid al-Islam in Oakland, California. The honorariums offered the speakers are so large that the contract must be approved by the University’s General Counsel and its Vice President for Student Affairs. Horowitz, of course, was provided no student funds for his speech, which was underwritten for a fifth the cost by Young Americas Foundation. Read more ...

Source: FrontPage Magazine

My Encounter With the Enemy in Milwaukee

By David Horowitz

While waiting to speak at the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee last night, I was given a tour of the Student Union, the venue for my talk. The Union building also houses the offices of student clubs, funded by mandatory student fees. On the bulletin board outside the office of the Muslim Students’ Association a flyer was posted, which was part of a campaign against my appearance. It was titled “Getting to Know David Horowitz,” and featured a section headed “Who is David Whorowitz?” At the top of the page was an anti-Semitic caricature of a Jew in the classic style familiar from the Nazi posters of the 1930s, which have become ubiquitous in the Arab world. The Jew in the caricature was standing in a garbage can with the cover on his head, dressed in a Nazi uniform, with an armband marked “H” for “Horowitz,” and the caption read “Horowitz Awareness Week.” This is the central of the tropes of the Muslim Students’ Association campaign on college campuses across the country: Jews are Nazis. “Bring your white sheets and brown shirts and COME ON DOWN! Flaming crosses and Stars of David will be supplied to those who arrive early.” Read more ...

Source: FrontPage Magazine

Why "Islamo-Fascism"?

By Robert Spencer and David Horowitz

When President Bush used the term “Islamo-Fascism” to describe the jihadists who have attacked us, many complained that it reflected prejudice against Muslims. The Council on American Islamic Relations, a “civil rights” organization with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, protested that the term “feeds the perception that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam.” In fact, the opposite is the truth. As the Algerian sociologist Marieme Helie Lucas explains, the term “Islamo-Fascism” was “initially coined by Algerian people struggling for democracy, against armed fundamentalist forces decimating people in our country, then later operating in Europe, where a number of us had taken refuge.” In other words, the term “Islamo-Fascism” originates with moderate Muslims under attack from Muslim radicals, who murdered more than 150,000 Muslims whom they regarded as infidels in Algeria in the 1990s.

Helie Lucas is the founder of the group Women Living Under Muslim Laws, which resists the oppression of women by these fanatics. The term Islamo-Fascism, as she explains, refers to “political forces working under the cover of religion in order to gain political power and to impose a theocracy (‘The Law’ -- singular -- of God, unchangeable, ahistorical, interpreted by self appointed old men) over democracy (i.e. the laws -- plural -- voted by the people and changeable by the will of the people).”

The term “Islamo-Fascism” does not refer to a generalized “war on Islam,” but to a defensive war against the attacks of radicals who have murdered hundreds of thousands of moderate Muslims, Jews, Christians, gays, women and infidels since the first radical Islamic state was formed in Iran in 1979, and the modern global jihad was launched in earnest.

Moderate Muslims who hold to Islam as a religion but reject its political ambitions are happy to live in pluralistic societies that separate religion from the state. Moderate Muslims are willing to live with non-Muslims as equals. It is these Muslims who are the victims of the Islamo-Fascists and the natural allies of the West, which is also the target of the jihad.

The jihadists, who are waging this war, are exponents of political – rather than religious – Islam. They are indeed fascists, sharing crucial ideological convictions with historical fascist movements.

The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, was an open admirer of Adolf Hitler, as was the principal theorist of the modern jihad, Sayyid Qutb. During World War II, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, cousin of Yasir Arafat and spiritual godfather of Palestinian nationalism, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, was openly pro-Nazi. In May 1941, he issued a fatwa calling upon the Germans to bomb Tel Aviv, and in November 1941 traveled to Berlin and met with Hitler. Then he went to the Balkans, where he spearheaded the creation of Muslim units of the Waffen SS.

The Islamic jihad launched by the Muslim Brotherhood, and carried on by offshoots such as al-Qaeda and Hamas, is a totalitarian movement seeking the control of every aspect of human life through the powers of the state. The jihadists want to bring all social and family life under the sway of Islamic law, through the creation of a global Islamic empire, with a caliphate in Baghdad. Like the Nazis before them, they believe in the inherent superiority of one group of human beings over all the rest, whom they regard as “infidels” and “unbelievers.” These infidels, according to the passages of the Qur’an that they invoke, are the “vilest of creatures” (Qur’an 98:6).

The term “Islamo-fascism” describes the agendas of the jihadists with perfect accuracy. It supports moderate Muslims who are seeking to defend themselves and distinguish their religious faith from the totalitarian faith of the jihad.

No one who wants to see moderate Muslims succeed in their efforts to resist the oppressive doctrines of the Islamo-fascists should oppose the use of this term. Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week is an effort to educate the general public about the enemy we face and, in the process, to give moderate Muslims support in their struggle.

Original article