• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Apparently, Hating Muslims Is Now A Family Value

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association has declared war on every Muslim in the United States:

Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America, let alone the monstrosity planned for Ground Zero. This is for one simple reason: each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government.

Each one is a potential jihadist recruitment and training center, and determined to implement the “Grand Jihad” of which Andy McCarthy has written.

Here is the strategy, in their own words, in the words of “An Explanatory Memorandum” circulated by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1991 which outlines “the General Strategic Goal” for the Islamic movement “in North America.”

Read it and shudder:

Muslims “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions…It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny…” (emphasis mine)

Because of this subversive ideology, Muslims cannot claim religious freedom protections under the First Amendment. They are currently using First Amendment freedoms to make plans to destroy the First Amendment altogether. There is no such thing as freedom of religion in Islam, and it is sheer and utter folly for Americans to delude themselves into thinking otherwise.

The major problem with Fischer’s screed is the fact that he ignores the fact that there cannot possibly be a connection between the Muslim Brotherhood and American mosque projects such as the so-called “Ground Zero” mosque:

I take it there’s a document called “An Explanatory Memorandum” attributed to the Muslim Brotherhood that has taken on a role analogous to that of the infamous “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” The document is not necessarily fraudulent; the Muslim Brotherhood is an extremist Sunni transnational organization that might very well be planning for world domination. Of course, they are about as likely to achieve this goal as Pinkie and the Brain. And the Muslim Brotherhood does not speak for all of Islam. It doesn’t even speak for all Sunni jihadists; I understand there is a nasty rivalry going on between MB and al Qaeda.

Someone here had said that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the main guy behind the Cordoba House Islamic center, is a Sufi. This is a detail I have yet to see in a news story, but I can confirm it is true. He is the imam of a Sufi mosque in lower Manhattan, about ten blocks north of the proposed Cordoba House site.

Thus, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is not connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. I can say this because there is no way the Muslim Brotherhood, or al Qaeda, or the Taliban, or any other organization dedicated to enforcing dogmatic Sunni Islam would have anything to do with a Sufi. In fact, Sufis in the Middle East have suffered terribly from attacks by Sunni terrorists.

Of course to someone who sees all Muslims as “the enemy” there is no distinguishing between sects and there is, of course, no such thing as a Muslim who doesn’t agree with the murderous ideology of men like Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atta. It’s same type of mindset that doesn’t see a distinction between a black man who commits a rape and African-Americans in general.

None of this should come as a surprise, the AFA has been a font of Islamophobia for some time now.

Back in November, for example, Fischer called for the expulsion of all Muslims from the United States military in the wake of Major Nidal Hassan’s rampage at Fort Hood. And, that’s not all:

The AFA, a non-profit that has a strong presence in the social conservative community, and is even a co-sponsor of the Value Voters summit. AFA describes its purpose as follows:

The American Family Association represents and stands for traditional family values and exists to motivate and equip citizens to reform our culture to reflect Biblical truth on which it was founded.

And Fischer has a lurid history of writing some pretty inflammatory stuff on AFA blog, such as that the U.S. should impose “legal sanctions for homosexual behavior.”

And, as former TPMer Zachary Roth reported in May, Fischer said in a radio broadcast that Hitler used gay soldiers because they “basically had no limits and the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict on whomever Hitler sent them after.”

Fischer’s attitude contrasts quite starkly with the sentiments that George Washington expressed in a 1790 letter to a Jewish congregation in Rhode Island:

To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport Rhode Island.

Gentlemen,

While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, from all classes of Citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and happy people.

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

G. Washington

Apparently, in Fischer’s world at least, bigotry is a family value, it is not, however, an American one.

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Alan Kellogg says:

    So the Imam is a sufi, that makes a huge difference.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Alan Kellogg says:

    Follow up:
    You know, after reading up some on the man the one clear message I get is, he’s too damn conciliatory. He tries too hard to please everybody and is diplomatic when he needs to speak strongly and forthrightly. That he is Sufi speaks well of him, but he is not a strong Sufi, when being bold would do his cause more good than his current course of action.
    I wonder, are there other Sufi who agree with the Imam’s course of action. Are there others who disagree. For the moment I agree with the Cordoba project, but a stronger leader is what it needs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. sam says:

    “Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America”
    I’m sure Manning can fill us in on details as to why this is a good idea.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. John Burgess says:

    ‘… being bold’ is not a typical Sufi trait. Rather, the path of least resistance is seen as desirable. Some of that, I suspect, comes from the historical fact that Sufis, as the mystical (and minority) form of Islam, have tended to come to bad ends when challenged by more militant Sunnis or Shi’as.
    Not all Sufis are pacifists, though. Take a look at <a href=”http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/islam-deobandi.htm”>Deobandi Islam</a> in Pakistan/India.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. ponce says:

    This isn’t a big surprise.
     
    Open hatred of Muslims is tolerated and even encouraged on many right-wing blogs.
     
    Nice of the press to finally notice what’s been going on for the last nine years.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. sam says:

    Ah, John, I think you misread that:
     

    The Deoband school has long sought to purify Islam by discarding supposedly un-Islamic accretions to the faith and reemphasizing the models established in the Koran and the customary practices of the Prophet Mohammed. Additionally, Deobandi scholars often have opposed what they perceive as Western influences. Much of the population adheres to Deobandi-influenced Hanafi Sunnism, but a sizable minority adheres to a more mystical version of Sunnism generally known as Sufism. Sufism centers on orders or brotherhoods that follow charismatic religious leaders.

     
    I.e., a majority of the population cleaves to Hanafi Sunnism, but a minority follows Sufism. Right?
     
     

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. mike says:

    I thought his association would get along great with radical muslims since both groups hate homosexuals so much.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  8. Steve Plunk says:

    One intolerant group speaking out against another intolerant group.  When will we all just tolerate each others intolerance?  Be sensitive to each others insensitivity?  Be less bigoted of the bigots?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  9. An Interested Party says:

    “I thought his association would get along great with radical muslims since both groups hate homosexuals so much.”

    Oh, then both groups should get along great with Christian fundamentalists and conservative Catholics…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  10. bcxbcv says:

    killing non-muslims for the sake of islam is a muslim value. What’s your problem, asshole, bryan fischer is right.
     
     

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  11. bcxbcv says:

    “I thought his association would get along great with radical muslims since both groups hate homosexuals so much.”
    Oh, then both groups should get along great with Christian fundamentalists and conservative Catholics…
     
    What you talking, moron, Catholics don’t hang homos and don’t seal their assholes with superglue as muslims do to homos in iraq and iran nor they throw them from buildings as they do in Gaza and mountains as they do elsewhere in the muslim lands.

     
     

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  12. Herb says:

    I’m reminded of the time when the neocons used to cite chapter and verse from Lenin to prove that perestroika was a trick and the Soviet Union really did intend to bury us. Those of us who were examining Soviet Industry recognized that the Soviet’s knew that they had to change. We fall into a trap if we do the same, citing one piece of Islamic teaching and basing our response on it. There is a great deal of diversity among Islamic leaders and genuine efforts at reform. If we treat them all as the if they agree with the muslim brotherhood we just might make them all into enemies.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  13. An Interested Party says:

    re: bcxbcv Thursday, August 12, 2010, 14:45

    Umm, “what I talking” is that many conservative Catholics and Christian fundamentalists feel the same way about gay people as many radical Muslims, despite the fact that they can’t get away with the same atrocities as their Islamic fellow homophobes… 

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Juneau: says:

    You guys wouldn’t know hate if it jumped up and bit you in the butt.  The liberal idea of hate is completely subjective, based solely on the liberals personal viewpoint on the issue.  for example, under the definition of “hate” used here by liberals, to say you think someone’s actions are wrong, it is hate ( see above where a nimrod states that fundamentalist Christians and Catholics hate homosexuals).  But if a muslim says that Jews in Palestine are wrong then that, conveniently, is not hate, it’s “truth.”
     
    Liberals use the term “hate” to marginalize the opinions of whoever they disagree with, rather than allow other’s opinions to stand as equal to theirs.  Even more ironically, liberals call this behavior of theirs “tolerance”, and brand any that disagree with them as intolerant.  This is only one of the reasons why progressive liberalism is one of the most evil ideologies in existence – it seeks to stifle all opposing opinion by branding it socially unacceptable.  The very antithesis of free speech and tolerance.
     

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Juneau: says:

    @ Herb
    I’m reminded of the time when the neocons used to cite chapter and verse from Lenin to prove that perestroika was a trick and the Soviet Union really did intend to bury us. Those of us who were examining Soviet Industry recognized that the Soviet’s knew that they had to change.
    You are speaking like a quasi-intellectual with no real sense of perspective.  You don’t think that the ideas of the USSR are burying us?  They’ve done a pretty good job of burying the initiative of the free enterprise system, a fair job of burying the idea of accountability to an electorate for the authority to govern.   In the last year, we have had the Russians tell us that we are going too far towards socialism. The Russians … But of course all of the socialistic clap-trap inhaled at University by the advisors and leaders in the current administration  had nothing to do with these “socialistic” programs at all.  Right?   Van Jones?  Van Jones, who?
    As to your second statement about “those of us who were examining Soviet Industry” = just who do you think you’re trying to fool here?   20 -20 hindsight does not an analyst make, not to mention your unabashed inclusion of yourself as one of the “enlightened” people who knew that the Soviet Union was destined to fall.   Additionally, current politics in Russia flirts with dictatorship on a regular basis, with Putin playing the strong-man shadow government role.
    What is it exactly about liberals that, when faced with governance that accelerates comprehensive centralized control, they are blinded to the steel fist under the velvet glove of outward appearances and pretty words?
    The soviet Union was truly “the evil empire.”  Just ask 20 million Russian dead -victims of Stalin’s pogroms against the intelligentsia and dissidents.   If you are labeling the cold war response to the USSR as an “overreaction,” then it is no surprise you are mistaken about a proper reaction to the Islamic threat to western societies as well.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Juneau: says:

    @ Herb
    If we treat them all as the if they agree with the muslim brotherhood we just might make them all into enemies.
    The notion of evaluating all in relation to the actions of the few doesn’t seem to bother you in regards to other religions – it has been done above on this very subject in relation to Christians and Catholics and you have not raised an objection.  Why is that?   None of the liberals here on OTB seem to fret about the down side of making enemies of all Christians, Catholics, or Jews – in fact it appears to be the opposite.  Can you tell me why the difference?   And why do you worry about making enemies of all muslims anyway?  After all it is a peaceful religion so having them as an enemy should not impact you or anyone else, correct?   If you say your worry comes from a simple sense of fairness, then back to square one – where is this fairness in regards to other religions?
    You are not at all consistent in your approach, based upon my various observations when visiting this blog over the better part of four months.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. An Interested Party says:

    Ahh, Juneau, projecting again…while accusing liberals of using the word “hate” subjectively, he turns around and does the same thing, accusing the government of using the “ideas of the Soviet Union” to destroy our country…please…oh, and by the way, many conservative Catholics and Christian fundamentalists in this country have expressed the same kind of hostility towards gay people that Islamic extremists have…it is hardly a case of just disagreeing with a “lifestyle choice”…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. mantis says:

    Shorter Juneau:
    “You liberals don’t know what hate even means.  We are just disagreeing, not hating.  By the way, all liberals are evil.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Juneau: says:

    The primary and significant difference is that I spoke of an ideology being evil, not individuals.  And, by the way, kindly notice that not once did I say that liberals are full of hate, even though by their own definition of “hate” they would accurately be described this way.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. mantis says:

     
    The primary and significant difference is that I spoke of an ideology being evil, not individuals
    So an individual who believes and promotes an evil ideology is not evil?
     
    Anyway, thanks for the insightful semantic discussion, Juneau.  Care to address the AFA’s call to dismiss the Constitution and start oppressing religious groups?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. Juneau: says:

    @ AIP
    and by the way, many conservative Catholics and Christian fundamentalists in this country have expressed the same kind of hostility towards gay people that Islamic extremists have


    This is so far from accurate that it has to be challenged as being completely fabricated.  Islamic extremists kill and maim homosexuals as a standard and sanctioned response which is encouraged and practiced by thousands of faithful practitioners in countries throughout the middle-east and sub-saharan Africa.

    You simply cannot reference, link, or cite any examples of sanctioned behavior like this in the western world from individuals who claim to be Christian or Catholic.

    The closest you can come is the idea of some African government having passed a law roughly similar to sharia law in the Muslim world.  Interesting that you are (properly) indignant about the law in Africa, but are completely silent about the fact that it is not as severe as the sharia law sought by muslims.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. Juneau: says:

    @mantis
    Anyway, thanks for the insightful semantic discussion, Juneau.  Care to address the AFA’s call to dismiss the Constitution and start oppressing religious groups?


    Who,exactly do you think you are kidding?  The government is already actively suppressing religious groups, despite the Constitution.  It’s just that now someone is suggesting doing it to a group that liberals (for some unfathomable reason) have decided should be “protected.”    Muslims are the current flavor of manufactured “compassion”  - the latest “oppressed” group that liberals are championing in order to stand against….?  What?

    Christian churches are being denied access to build and it has been going on for years.   Cities are having to be sued to allow home bible studies to take place because the homeowner doesn’t have a “public facility” permit,  and on, and on, and on.

    And all of you could care less.   So please, spare me your manufactured outrage, because it is abundantly clear that the left doesn’t really care about religious freedom, they just care about the latest warm fuzzy they get for “standing up” against “oppression.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. An Interested Party says:

    “You simply cannot reference, link, or cite any examples of sanctioned behavior like this in the western world from individuals who claim to be Christian or Catholic.”

    I never claimed that it was sanctioned behavior in the western world…thankfully, we have written constitutions and laws to protect us from the extremism of any religion…

    “Interesting that you are (properly) indignant about the law in Africa, but are completely silent about the fact that it is not as severe as the sharia law sought by muslims.”

    Bigotry is vile and should be opposed, whether it comes from Muslims or Christians or anyone else…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. [...] and Robert Spencer, reinforced at various times by Fox News hosts like Sean Hannity, conservative “pro-family” organizations, and so-called “men of God,” all of whom convey the message, either explicitly or implicitly, [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. [...] for weeks on talk radio and Fox News Channel, that Fox News hosts like Sean Hannity, conservative “pro-family” organizations, and so-called “men of God” started weighing in on [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0