This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3649

Radical Muslims Obsessing Over "Obsession" - attempts to stop distribution of film act of stealth jihad

September 29, 2008

Radical Muslims Obsessing Over "Obsession"

By WILLIAM MAYER and BEILA RABINOWITZ

September 29, 2008 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - A strange phenomenon is playing itself out in a public way within the radical Muslim community, that provides extraordinary insight into their thought processes.

Self-described "moderate" Muslim groups and individuals are feigning outrage over the mass distribution, a week ago, of the acclaimed video "Obsession," which documents the threat posed by Islamism. These forces have mounted a classic public relations juggernaut filled with lies, charges of bigotry and threats of legal intimidation, all with the intent of supressing the video. The fact is that this full-court-press constitutes stealth jihad, the legal twin of the unrestricted Islamic holy war being waged against us, which is so accurately depicted in the film.

The groups acting in lockstep opposition to Obsession includes the usual suspects, tainted Muslim organizations who have been named as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror prosecution and should therefore have little credibility - for example, the Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR] and the Islamic Society of North America.

Also active in this effort is the Muslim Public Affairs Council [MPAC] who in a September 11, 2001 radio broadcast originating in Los Angeles stated, "If we're going to look at suspects we should look to the groups that benefit the most from these kinds of incidents, and I think we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list because I think this diverts attention from what's happening in the Palestinian territories so that they can go on with their aggression and occupation and apartheid policies," and others, equally guilty of fraudulently operating under the mantle of moderation.

The vitriol being spewed by these groups is so extreme that it provides a true glimpse into the mind of these terrorist sympathizers, one only has to grasp the malicious anti-Jewish cant that accompanies this effort to understand the depth of their hatred and they danger that they pose.

The core of this frenetic criticism revolves around a two tiered strategy:

One, a desire to vilify Jews in a manner reminiscent of the libel done via the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the propaganda that led up to the Third Reich. Lest it be said again, these people are more than Jew haters, yes of course their first hate is for the Jews, swiftly followed by the Christians and the rest of the "non-believing" "kuffar" rabble, but it's a broader indictment than that. These people viscerally hate the West which has made the critical mistake of welcoming them as a religious minority rather than proponents of reactionary, fascistic ideology. As a result, their hate of freedom of speech is palpable.

Substantiating this observation is CAIR's insistence, displayed in a legal challenge [see, http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/ObessesionlettertoFEC.pdf] that the distribution of the film is somehow connected to Israel, "…All three of whom are reported to serve as employees of Aish HaTorah International, an organization apparently based in Israel…Sources have reported that Rabbi Raphael Shore is an Israeli citizen who lives in Jerusalem…It appears that the funding for the production, marketing and distribution of Obsession may have originated from Israel-based Aish HaTorah International." The point behind this malicious tactic is evident given the fact that, even assuming that this distribution program originated in Israel, there would be nothing illegal about it. It's merely there as a red-herring intended to stoke the long-standing radical Muslim belief of a world-wide conspiracy of control emanating from Israel and run by the Jews. Muslim critics of the film have even gone so far as to call it, "Nazi propagandism," [see, statement by Khaleel Mohammed, http://www.obsessionwithhate.com] know full well the implications of that language in such a setting. Oddly, Mohammed appears in Obsession, only later apparently changing his mind and thus bringing it into accord with the radical Muslim line. (see below)

Two, a campaign of legal intimidation and publicly spread lies about the film with the intent of suppressing it, part of a larger effort designed to strangle any criticism of Islam at all. Those waging this jihad against the truth and the right of inquiry, hope to, building upon legislation already enacted throughout Europe and Canada, make it a crime to "insult," or "defame" Islam.

Of course that leaves it up to the Islamists to define what constitutes an offense against their religion.

Because the producers have gone to great length to stress the obvious, that most Muslims are peaceful, view the reaction to Obsession as a truth detector. Why are these parties acting as if they are complicit in the violence being depicted? If they are not part of the problem or closet supporters of the goals of the Islamofascist terrorists, then why object to the matter being discussed in a public way?

The answer is that they aren't objecting because Obsession is untruthful, they oppose it because it's all too truthful. They object most strenuously because the film is about them. It's not Islamophobic because it doesn't paint all Muslims with the same brush, just those engaged in overt violence or those serving as a jihadist fifth column, supportive of the goals of al-Qaeda - our defeat, followed by the imposition of a world-wide caliphate and the recognition of Shari'a.

Since 9/11 these groups have been allowed to use the charge of Islamophobia in the United States to hamstring their critics. CAIR and other groups have spent an inordinate amount of time "documenting" often spectacularly ridiculous phony charges of anti-Muslim bigotry, when in fact they are in actuality trying to advance Shari'a compliance, under the guise of civil-rights enforcement. In this skewed view a business owner who objects to his employee wearing hijab during working hours is by definition an Islamophobe. Ditto the boss who fires Muslims who cause workplace disruption, insisting on time off to pray while on the job.

These spurious cases are then tallied and spit back by CAIR and others as evidence of widespread Islamophobia, when indeed the problems are often due to intransigence and an underlying intention to create out of whole cloth, the myth of anti-Muslim bigotry.

Though those waging this deadly earnest stealth jihad label it Islamophobia for propaganda purposes, it is most accurately understood as the rendering of informed judgment, based upon the facts.

Despite the controversy over Obsession, nearly 30 million copies of the video have already been distributed, so the material is out there in a big way. It seems highly unlikely that it will be possible to legally stop further distribution of the film, regardless of what their press releases claim because, at this point anyway, talking about these things is not a crime, yet.

Perhaps the best lesson to be learned from this affair is understanding the extreme lengths that the Islamists will go to abridge the fundamental constitutional rights that all Americans enjoy. Groups of the ilk of CAIR and ISNA are at their core motivated by a dogmatic oppressive ideology that is classically anti-Semitic, warlike in nature and totalitarian in form. They will gladly - if allowed - change extant U.S. law so that it is accommodative of their religious law, Shari'a. As we are seeing in Europe they can't be bought off and can be neither compromised nor reasoned with because they are religious fanatics in the truest sense of the world. The only option is to meet them head-on in the political sphere where they will hopefully be defeated. To do that the public must be made aware of the nature of the conflict and the dimensions of the stealth jihad. Seven years into the war on terror that still seems a daunting task and it is not at all clear at this late date that the effort will be adequate. http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=obsessionid=9.29.08%2Ehtm

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Muslim Obsession interviewee throws Obsession under the bus, calls it "Satanic"

khaleelmohammed.jpg
The audacity of BS

Khaleel Mohammed, a professor at San Diego State University and a popular "moderate Muslim," goes around the country reassuring Jewish audiences by telling them that in the Qur'an Allah gives the land of Israel to the Jews. And it does say that. One key verse is 5:21, which promises Israel to the Jews conditionally: "O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin."

This sounds great, of course: it suggests that Muslims who fight against Israel are ignoring their own holy book, and that once this verse and others like it are pointed out to them, they will accept the existence of Israel. And it also suggests that the vast majority of Muslims, because of this verse, have no problem with Israel at all.

Unfortunately, the Qur'an also says that the Jews, through their disobedience to Allah, have earned Allah's curse (2:89, 9:30). Those who are accursed forfeit whatever Allah has given them. Meanwhile, the true followers of Moses's genuine, uncorrupted teachings are the Muslims, and so they are the ones who inherit the promises about Israel.

But that part of the Qur'anic message doesn't make it into Khaleel Mohammed's presentations.

Also, a few years ago Khaleel Mohammed said this about me: "He misquotes verses of the Qur'an, takes things out of context, and shamelessly lies." Since I do not misquote verses of the Qur'an, take things out of context, or shamelessly lie, I contacted him and asked for either documentation of his charges or a retraction. (I also responded to his false charges here.) He refused to retract, even though he did not (and could not) produce even one example of my misquoting verses of the Qur'an, taking things out of context, or shamelessly lying. And he compounded matters by responding: "As for shameless lies, I stand by my assertion, especially after received material in which you claim Muhammad married his daughter in law etc."

In reality, I did not fabricate this "claim," and I am sure that Khaleel Mohammed is well aware of this. The notorious incident of Muhammad's marriage to his former daughter-in-law Zaynab, far from being a "shameless lie," is a well-known and much-discussed element of Islamic tradition. You can read about it in this section of my Jihad Watch Blogging the Qur'an series.

Anyway, Khaleel Mohammed burnished his credentials as a "moderate" by appearing in Obsession, and for several years now since the film originally appeared he seemed perfectly happy to have done so. Even when it was shown on Fox, as far as I can tell Khaleel Mohammed uttered not a word of demurral or protest (if he did actually issue a statement at that time and I have overlooked it, please send it to me and I will correct this). But now that 28 million copies of the film have been distributed all over the country and it has a higher profile than ever before, Khaleel Mohammed has discovered that it is a "vile piece of propaganda," and has apologized for appearing in it. The apology appears on the Obsession with Hate website about which Marisol recently wrote here.

In an exclusive statement for obsessionwithhate.com, Dr. Khaleel Mohammed, the only Obsession interviewee who is an Islamic Studies Professor, delivers a new lethal blow to the film's credibility, exposing what many already knew:

"Sadly, it would seem that I have allowed myself to be used. I gave an interview to the makers of "obsession" wherein I explained the meaning of Jihad, and its misuse by extremists. I understood that the film would be used objectively, focusing on fanatics who seek to spread violence. I am aware that there is a disclaimer at the beginning of the film that says it is not about Islam in general, but only about extremist interpretations.

"But the material from some of the speakers gives the lie to the disclaimer: many of them are not experts, or have used the mantle of academic qualifications to purvey hate. That their alarmist drivel should be mixed with my whittled down interview proves that the intent of the film is not to educate, but to mislead. The free distribution of the film to voters in particular districts shows the political chicanery that is the motive, and the secrecy about the financing of the distribution only underlines the evil intent in circulating this vile piece of propaganda.

"Evidence seems to indicate the involvement of Aish ha-Torah in this dishonest enterprise. I find that particularly distressing, because any Jewish organization ought to realize what the film seeks to do: they demonize an entire community to the point where a government takes action to further beleaguer its citizens and resident aliens simply because of their religious identity. This bigotry over religion and identity is precisely what caused the Shoah — and it is sad that those who ought to have learned what hate can engender should seek to imitate Nazi propagandism.

"Yet — for all the nefarious intent of the distributors of the film — I must also accept culpability for allowing myself to be so used. I still oppose many of the traditional interpretations of Islam—but that has nothing to do with the film Obsession. I cannot stand by silently and allow my participation in such satanic demonization of innocents. I apologize to my fellow Muslims for appearing in such a film. I apologize to my Jewish teachers and friends-- who have warned me time and again about falling into such a situation—for not heeding their counsel. And I expect now that those who support the film will make me their target. But again: I am no diplomat, and I love a good fight. I am obsessed with the truth. Let's get it on. "

The audacity of Khaleel Mohammed's BS never ceases to amaze me. For one thing, he says here, "I explained the meaning of Jihad, and its misuse by extremists," when he must know, if he knows anything about Islamic theology, that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that jihad mainly means warfare (by various means, violent and nonviolent) against unbelievers in order to subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law. And when he says that the film demonizes an entire community, he is ignoring large sections of the beginning and end of the film, where the film plainly states that most Muslims have nothing to do with the jihadist program, and other elements within it -- including Khaled Abu Toameh's assertion that his religion has been "hijacked," which is presented without contradiction.

And then comes his most audacious bit of BS: "And I expect now that those who support the film will make me their target. But again: I am no diplomat, and I love a good fight. I am obsessed with the truth. Let's get it on." Obsessed with truth? This is a man who misrepresents the Qur'an to Jewish audiences; who has smeared me and my work with false charges that he refuses to retract; and who is either unacquainted with or deliberately deceptive about one of the most famous incidents in Muhammad's career. Obsessed with truth? Obsessed with obscuring it, maybe. Obsessed with destroying it, fine. But obsessed with presenting it? Not Khaleel Mohammed.

So, Dr. Mohammed: I gladly accept the challenge you issued to those who support the film, and am ready to debate you about Obsession, the meaning of jihad, the Jews in the Qur'an, and the life of Muhammad and his marriage to his former daughter-in-law. Or if you'd like to frame the debate in some other way, I am open to your suggestions. I'm happy to see that you have changed your tune from your contemptuous and inaccurate description of our earlier exchanges that still stands here, in which you refuse to discuss substantive issues with me. I look forward to hearing from you at director@jihadwatch.org, and will cheerfully publish your response. I love a good fight too. "Let's get it on" indeed. http://jihadwatch.org/

-------------------------------------------

Attacking "Obsession"
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, October 03, 2008

Khaleel Mohammed, a professor at San Diego State University and a popular "moderate Muslim," burnished his credentials as a "moderate" by appearing in the film Obsession, the famous exposé of Islamic jihad activity. For several years now since the film originally appeared he seemed perfectly happy to have done so. Even when it was shown on Fox News, as far as I can tell Khaleel Mohammed uttered not a word of demurral or protest. But now that 28 million copies of the film have been distributed all over the country and it has a higher profile than ever before, Khaleel Mohammed has discovered that it is a "vile piece of propaganda," and has apologized for appearing in it. The apology appears on the "Obsession with Hate" website.

His statement is audaciously deceitful. He says, "I explained the meaning of Jihad, and its misuse by extremists," when he must know, if he knows anything about Islamic theology, that all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that jihad mainly means warfare (by various means, violent and nonviolent) against unbelievers in order to subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law. And when he says that the film demonizes the entire Muslim community, he is ignoring large sections of the beginning and end of the film, where the film plainly states that most Muslims have nothing to do with the jihadist program, and other elements within it -- including Khaled Abu Toameh's assertion that his religion has been "hijacked," which is presented without contradiction.

Khaleel Mohammed's deceptions go deeper than just this apology. He goes around the country reassuring Jewish audiences by telling them that in the Qur'an Allah gives the land of Israel to the Jews. And it does say that. One key verse is 5:21, which promises Israel to the Jews conditionally: "O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin."

This sounds great, of course: it suggests that Muslims who fight against Israel are ignoring their own holy book, and that once this verse and others like it are pointed out to them, they will accept the existence of Israel. And it also suggests that the vast majority of Muslims, because of this verse, have no problem with Israel at all.

Unfortunately, the Qur'an also says that the Jews, through their disobedience to Allah, have earned Allah's curse (2:89, 9:30). Those who are accursed forfeit whatever Allah has given them. Meanwhile, the true followers of Moses's genuine, uncorrupted teachings are the Muslims, and so they are the ones who inherit the promises about Israel.

But that part of the Qur'anic message doesn't make it into Khaleel Mohammed's presentations.

Also, a few years ago Khaleel Mohammed said this about me: "He misquotes verses of the Qur'an, takes things out of context, and shamelessly lies." Since I do not misquote verses of the Qur'an, take things out of context, or shamelessly lie, I contacted him and asked for either documentation of his charges or a retraction. (I also responded to his false charges here.) He refused to retract, even though he did not (and could not) produce even one example of my misquoting verses of the Qur'an, taking things out of context, or shamelessly lying. And he compounded matters by responding: "As for shameless lies, I stand by my assertion, especially after received material in which you claim Muhammad married his daughter in law etc."

In reality, I did not fabricate this "claim," and I am sure that Khaleel Mohammed is well aware of this. The notorious incident of Muhammad's marriage to his former daughter-in-law Zaynab, far from being a "shameless lie," is a well-known and much-discussed element of Islamic tradition. You can read about it in this section of my Jihad Watch Blogging the Qur'an series. But after I noted this at my website Jihad Watch, Khaleel Mohammed responded venomously at The American Muslim -- a reliably truth-free publication – in a piece about "Spencer and his satanic cabal." In it, he says:

This time around he raises the red-herring and disproven nonsense about Muhammad marrying his daughter-in-law--and here, either Spencer is a bigger ignoramus than I think, or he has once again resorted to prevarication. It is difficult to figure out where he is coming from. The issue of whether or not an adopted son like Zaid is technically Muhammad's son could be answered by any first week student of Islamic law. Perhaps Spencer should go reattend Professor Carl Ernst's classes and get some deprogramming from a bona-fide expert on Islam.

I never had the pleasure of being a student of the estimable Carl Ernst, so Khaleel Mohammed's "reattend" is inaccurate.

But more importantly, in this Khaleel Mohammed suggests that Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, did not actually marry his daughter-in-law, because his adopted son Zayd was not to be considered his son at all -- and that I am either unaware of all this or lying about it. It is "difficult" for Khaleel Mohammed to know where I am "coming from" because he apparently has not read, or does not want his readers to know about, my discussions of this incident, in which I deal with the material he claims I ignore. See, for example, this section of my Blogging the Qur'an series, in which I wrote this:

Allah here emphasizes that an adopted son cannot be a true son, and so by extension Zaynab was never really Muhammad's daughter-in-law at all, and there is no cause for scandal.

If Khaleel Mohammed had cared to spend even a moment on research before slinging his accusations, he might have discovered that I also discuss the issue of adoption and its relationship to the Zaynab incident on page 67 of my 2006 book The Truth About Muhammad. But he prefers to pretend that I ignore all this, out of either stupidity or bigotry, in order to portray Muhammad in the worst possible light.

Yet it is I whose scholarship is poor and who issue "poison-pen" tirades.

The bulk of Khaleel Mohammed's piece in The American Muslim consists of the usual series of insults to my integrity and scholarship, accompanied by the usual failure to provide any actual evidence of my alleged egregious errors. He even asks his readers to take his word that what he is saying is true:

Spencer seeks to hoodwink his readers by talking of Jihad being war...and that idea, rather obviously, is not accepted by scholars of Islam (Muslim and non-Muslim). I am not even going to get into detailing that I do not deny that there are some Muslims who attempt to warp the meaning into that...but throughout Islamic history, there have always been scholars who have harkened [sic] to the true meaning.

What is that true meaning? Which scholars? What establishes that the Muslims who believe that jihad includes warfare are "warping" its meaning? Khaleel Mohammed offers no answers -- we just have to take it all on faith.

And then, displaying again the audacity of his dishonesty, he accuses me of being the one who doesn't work from evidence:

I guess it irks you that your "scholarship" is not accepted among people of conscience and discernment. Perhaps, instead of knowledge, you rely on faith to argue against Islam and anyone who is a Muslim. Since you are such an upstanding crusader, I wonder: what would Jesus do in this situation?

What would Jesus do, Dr. Mohammed? For one thing, he would tell the truth. But that is a concept with which you are quite obviously unacquainted. In his apology for Obsession comes Khaleel Mohammed's most audacious deception of all: "And I expect now that those who support the film will make me their target. But again: I am no diplomat, and I love a good fight. I am obsessed with the truth. Let's get it on." Obsessed with truth? This is a man who misrepresents the Qur'an to Jewish audiences; who has smeared me and my work with false charges that he refuses to retract; and who is either unacquainted with or deliberately deceptive about one of the most famous incidents in Muhammad's career. Obsessed with truth? Obsessed with obscuring it, maybe. Obsessed with destroying it, fine. But obsessed with presenting it? Not Khaleel Mohammed.

I have already told Khaleel Mohammed that I accepted the challenge he issued to those who support the film. I am ready to debate him about Obsession, the meaning of jihad, the Jews in the Qur'an, and the life of Muhammad and his marriage to his former daughter-in-law. However, at The American Muslim, he contemptuously refused: "You claim to want to debate, and hope that perhaps in entertaining you, I will somehow give credence to your nonsense." One would think, of course, that if I really were the "satanic ignoramus" he calls me in that piece, that he would accept my invitation to debate, mop the floor with me, and thereby end my baneful influence forever. But instead, he hides behind a barrage of insults, and refuses my challenge.

"Satanic." "Ignoramus." "Bigotry." "Crusader." Khaleel Mohammed's frenzied name-calling only highlights his intellectual bankruptcy, his contempt for truthful and honest dealing -- and his increasing desperation at being exposed as the poseur he is.
Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His next book, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, is coming this November from Regnery Publishing.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=7006173A-5C71-47F7-8145-F14411CCF0BB

This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3649