Noah Green – and ‘Not All Muslims Do That!’ Why the Capitol barricade crasher – and Farrakhan follower – is already out of the news.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/04/noah-green-and-not-all-muslims-do-jamie-glazov/
Introduction: Just recently, we witnessed U.S. authorities and the establishment media try their hardest to de-Islamize the Jihad mass shooting in Boulder, Colorado, and to obscure the fact that the Jihadist perpetrator, Ahmad Al Issa, is a Muslim migrant ISIS sympathizer.
And now we see the same pattern with Noah Green, who crashed his car into a barricade at the U.S. Capitol building last Friday, hitting Capitol Police officers, one of whom was killed and a second severely injured. Green also got out of his car and charged officers with a knife. The establishment media clearly salivated at the prospect of the perpetrator being a white supporter of Donald Trump, so that they could perpetuate their false narrative about the threat of “white supremacist terrorism” all around us. But alas for the media, it was not to be: Green was a black man and a member of the Nation of Islam. And so he is, typically and expectedly, no longer in the news. President Biden heroically led the way, making no mention of Green’s ideology in his statement on the attack and, instead of condemning Green’s violence, alluding instead to the mob that stormed Capitol Hill in January. Even Facebook did its faithful leftist duty, deleting – within the blink of an eye – Green’s Facebook page, where the Capitol barricade crasher proclaimed himself a “Follower of Farrakhan.” Louis Farrakhan is, of course, the leader of the Nation of Islam, which, apart from things like stirring hatred of whites and Jews, embraces Islam’s jihad doctrine.
‘Not All Muslims Do That!’
Now that we have learned how and why the Left perpetuates Jihad Denial, we move on to examine the key arguments within its toxic agenda. As will be demonstrated below, the entire gambit is a lie and a fraud.
It’s Just the Extremists!
One of the most widely employed Jihad Denial arguments heard in our culture today is the infamous assurance that It’s not Islam, but the extremists! This proposition is interwoven with the central foundation of the Jihad Denial matrix: that it all really has nothing to do with Islam. The thinking goes like this: even when Jihadists quote their Islamic texts to justify their barbaric actions, it is not because of Islam. The terrorists, we are told, are just a very tiny minority of Muslims who have misunderstood and hijacked their own religion. They are, therefore, not even real Muslims.
The reality is that Muslims who perpetrate Jihad do so because they are following the example of their prophet Mohammed, and are abiding by the mandates of their faith.[i] This is precisely why they refer to their own texts to legitimize and sanction the violence they perpetrate. The “tiny minority” argument is also a complete falsehood, because (1) it is immaterial whether a large majority or tiny minority is involved, since a very small number of people can inflict a monumental amount of damage, and (2) the number of Muslims that are either involved in, or support, Islamic terror is actually extremely high.[ii]
Not all Muslims Do That!
Another popular Jihad Denial argument is the Not all Muslims do that! con job. In this case, when devout Muslims perpetrate a crime carrying out the directives of Islam, Unholy Alliance[iii] members and followers dutifully proclaim: But not all Muslims do that! The bizarre assumption here is that because not all Muslims do something, it somehow makes the victims, and the problem of Jihad and Sharia, go away. But it is completely inconsequential whether all Muslims do something or not. It is a given that not all people in any one group do or see everything in the same way — and there are obviously some “good” people in most environments. What matters is that Islamic Law exists independently of whether Muslims follow it or not. In other words, the fact that there may be Muslims who do not follow Islamic Law does not make Islamic Law disappear, nor does it erase the Muslims who follow it, or the people they hurt by doing so.[iv] It is also crucial to keep in mind that when it comes to Jihadists, they represent the military tip of the spear — and the military is always the minority of the population. As Daniel Greenfield points out: “Outside of Sparta, not everyone in a population fights.”[v] Thus, not all Muslims might be carrying out the violent commands of the Islam, but many of them may very well be supporting someone else doing it.
ISIS Kills Muslims Too!
Another much-used argument is the ISIS kills Muslims too! ploy. Here we see the attempt to de-Islamize the Islamic State by noting that its victims include some Muslims. President Obama engaged in this charade on countless occasions.[vi] But the proposition that Islamic terror cannot be Islamic if its victims include Muslims is simply erroneous. First, it completely ignores the reality of how totalitarian revolutions and systems invariably devour their own children. Indeed, the Islamic State kills Muslims precisely because of Islam, since Islam by its very nature has to kill its own. This is because the Muslims that are dying at the hands of the Islamic State are seen as not the right kind of Muslims. They are regarded as being either apostates or unbelievers. Islam creates these categories of subhumans and delineates the punishments that must be meted out to them. To be sure, Islam mandates that devout and real Muslims must punish, and in some circumstances kill, those Muslims whom they regard as neither legitimate nor properly devout.[vii]
It would do well to point out that ISIS also fights other Jihadist groups, such as Jabhat al-Nusra — which is an extension of al-Qaeda. Daniel Greenfield touches on this phenomenon, commenting: “If fighting ISIS or being killed by it makes you moderate, al-Qaeda is moderate.”[viii]
Criticizing Islam Means You Hate All Muslims!
Another deceptive ploy in this con-game is that of conflating all Muslims with Islam. When a truth-teller points to a negative feature in Islam, the Jihad Denier will often immediately retort with the Not all Muslims do that! charade. The assumption here is that the truth-teller has somehow said something bad about all Muslims. The denier then usually refers to some nice Muslim person he knows, as though this delegitimizes what the truth-teller has said. But the whole paradigm here, which involves a conflation of Muslims with Islam, is specious. The truth-teller never said anything about all Muslims; he was speaking about Islam.
Raymond Ibrahim, a leading scholar of Islam, has unveiled the monumental dishonesty that is involved in this conflation tactic. Noting that it is “an all too common approach” that is used to shield Islam from criticism, Ibrahim brings up the example that not every single Muslim alive today believes that the apostasy penalty should be upheld. But this reality, he stresses, “is not a reflection of Islam; it is a reflection of individual human freedom — a freedom that ironically goes against Islamic teaching.” [ix]
The conflation tactic is also severely flawed because it is based on a faulty Marxist collectivist premise that conflates an ideology with everyone who happens to be standing in the vicinity of its banner. The deniers who automatically accuse a person of hating all Muslims when that person has said something critical about Islam are actually projecting their own totalitarian Marxist thinking. The truth-teller about Islam is simply referring to an ideology that is dangerous, and to the people who follow the ideology. This by no means implies that every member of Islam accepts, knows about or is carrying out these ideological teachings. But leftists automatically interpret truth-telling about Islam as hate speech against all Muslims not only because it helps them achieve Jihad Denial, but also because they themselves are totalitarians who cannot fathom the possibility of individuals existing outside of a group-think environment. They simply cannot grasp that individuals can stand on their own and not have to conform to a Party Line, since it is not a reality that leftists themselves inhabit.
Look at all the Good and Peaceful Muslims!
There is also the trick of pointing to the “good” and “peaceful” Muslims in an effort to legitimize Islam. This also involves the tactic of conflating all Muslims with Islam. But it is irrational to associate “good Muslims” with the teachings of Islam, because their non-violent behavior is not sanctioned by the Islamic texts that mandate totalitarianism and violence. In other words, there may be many Muslims who make up their own brand of Islam and believe in it and are, therefore “good” Muslims in our eyes. But they are regarded as bad Muslims by Islam, because (1) Islam mandates Islamic Law, Islamic supremacism, war against the unbelievers, sexual slavery and many other barbarities,[x] and (2) Muslims cannot be put on a higher pedestal of authority than Islam itself. [xi]
Another crucial fact to stress is that most Muslims are, obviously, born into Muslim environments and are not, therefore, given a choice as to whether they want to be Muslim or not. When they become adults, they may not agree with Islam or support or participate in Jihad. But if they leave Islam, they risk being killed because of Islamic apostasy laws, which demand the killing of Muslims who abandon the faith.[xii] These individuals are labelled “Muslim” nonetheless, but they are really Muslim in name only. Many of them live in the West and, therefore, have the luxury of not having to practice Sharia and Jihad — and some of them are even safe to reject both if they wish to. But it is precisely because of the West’s influence, not of Islam’s, that they are safe to do this.[xiii] These Muslims are, once again, a reflection of individuality and human freedom, not of Islam.
Others Do It Too!
Now we arrive at the popular Others Do It Too! charade. This is when the denier hears about a crime committed by Islam and immediately brings up something that someone else has done that is allegedly similar. This tactic works very successfully in our culture, yet it is severely flawed. First, it is based on the false and bizarre assumption that a crime committed by a person in one place is somehow justified if another person does the same thing somewhere else. Second, the deniers in these instances always use fallacious parallels. For instance, when confronting the issue of Islamic rape, a denier will often equivocate by stating that rape is also committed by non-Muslims all across the United States. But the fundamental difference is that when a rape is committed in America, it is illegal and if the rapist is caught he will be put in prison. Where Islamic Law prevails, rape is legal. A Muslim who rapes a non-Muslim female can point to Islam for justification and legitimacy.[xiv] And if a husband hits his wife in America, he will be charged with a crime. In Islam, the Muslim husband will not only not be charged, he will be seen as a good Muslim, since wife-beating finds legitimacy in Islam.[xv]
The Jihad Denier also draws a moral equivalency between Islam and other religions, especially Christianity and Judaism. When the denier is confronted by the verses in the Qur’an that promote Jihadist violence, for instance, he instinctively retorts that the same teachings exist in other religions — especially in the Old Testament.
This tactic is also completely disingenuous. The Judeo-Christian tradition is built on the principle of trying to restrain humans from evil. Islam, meanwhile, on many levels, encourages its members to perpetrate evil: jihad, sex-slavery, female genital mutilation, etc.[xvi] When the denier points to something Christians have done wrong, the argument is illegitimate because the behavior of Christians that may be “bad” contradicts Christian teachings. If Christians commit murder or engage in sex slavery, they are acting in an un-Christian manner because they are violating Christian teachings. But if Muslims kill unbelievers or force non-Muslim girls into sexual slavery, which the Islamic State and Boko Haram do on a daily basis, they can find justifications for this behavior in Islamic texts.[xvii] So there is no moral equivalency when it comes to Christianity and Islam.[xviii]
As far as the Old Testament is concerned, deniers often point to its “violent” texts to suggest that Judaism is no better than Islam when it comes to condoning violence. They like to display moral indignation about passages where God orders genocides, such as the order given to Saul against the Amalekites in Samuel 1, 15:3. But the command given to Saul, like others that may be found in the Old Testament, is not, like the Qur’an’s teachings, an open-ended command directed to all believers for all time and place. Unless you are Saul or an Amalekite at that time and place, it doesn’t concern you or anyone else. This is why, as Robert Spencer points out, there is not a single example of a Jew or a Christian committing an act of violence and justifying it by referring to the order given against the Amalekites.[xix]And this is also why there are no Jewish or Christian fanatics anywhere who commit mass murder on the scale of 9/11 and justify doing so by pointing to their texts — the way the Muslim 9/11 attackers did with their texts.[xx]
They Just Need Jobs!
Another argument in the Jihad Denial labyrinth blames poverty for Islamic terrorism (which, of course, also isn’t really Islamic). This Marxist view was put on full, pathetic display in February 2015 when Obama’s State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf, infamously suggested that one of the main root causes of Muslims joining groups like ISIS is “lack of opportunity for jobs.”[xxi] In this leftist line of thinking, Islamic “extremism” stems from poverty and oppression, which, in turn, are caused by capitalism, American imperialism, etc. This paradigm achieves the leftist objective of absolving Jihadists — because the devil made them do it. And the devil is us. We are at fault because we forced their hand.
Empirical reality and historical evidence, of course, completely discredit the poverty-causes-terrorism fantasy. Many Jihadists and Jihadist leaders come from the most educated, wealthy, and Westernized backgrounds.[xxii] Osama bin Laden was the son of a billionaire businessman, Ayman al-Zawahiri is a physician, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has an engineering degree. One of the San Bernardino shooters, Syed Farook, held a good job in environmental health[xxiii] and the Chattanooga shooter, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, had a degree in electrical engineering.[xxiv]
Close to 60 percent of Palestinian suicide bombers have attended college; they are not the children of economic despair and hopelessness.[xxv] As scholar Daniel Pipes affirms, “suicide bombers who hurl themselves against foreign enemies offer their lives not to protest financial deprivation but to change the world.”[xxvi] And no wonder that a 2016 report found that, contrary to Marie Harf’s wisdom, Islamic State recruits were not driven by poverty and were above average in education.[xxvii]
Despite the evidence, however, the Left continues to believe in and regurgitate this toxic nonsense. And that is why this particular Marxist assumption molded American policy throughout the Obama years. In September 2013, for instance, Secretary of State John Kerry launched a new global “counter-terror” fund. At a New York meeting of the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF), he spoke of the importance of “providing more economic opportunities for marginalized youth at risk of recruitment.” He and his Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoglu, unveiled a $200 million initiative designed to leverage public and private funding in support of “countering violent extremism” (CVE) efforts, the disastrous approach to terror practiced by the Obama administration discussed in Chapter 1.[xxviii] Known formally as the “Global Fund for Community Engagement and Resilience,” the purpose of the group was to support local communities and organizations to counter “extremist” ideology and promote “tolerance”.[xxix]
The problem with all of these efforts, of course, is that there are many rich Muslims who support terrorism, and there are many poor people who do not support or engage in terrorism. Robert Spencer asked the appropriate question in the context of John Kerry and the GCTF:
Is it poverty and a lack of economic opportunities that leads the fantastically rich House of Saud to finance that jihad worldwide? If Kerry were correct and terrorism is simply a byproduct of poverty, why isn’t Haiti a terrorist state? Why isn’t the world plagued with Bolivian suicide bombers?[xxx]
Shillman Fellow Bruce Thornton has made a similarly profound observation exposing the fundamental flaw of the poverty-causes-terrorism Marxist charade:
Left unexplained is the fact that billions of other people around the world even more impoverished and hopeless have not created a multi-continental network of groups dedicated to inflicting brutal violence and mayhem on those who do not share their faith or who block their visions of global domination.[xxxi]
Indeed, many people around the world have suffered and been humiliated, but they have not turned to terrorism. One thing for sure in terms of Kerry’s GCTF, however, was that, as Spencer warned at the time, some or most of its funds would end up financing the jihad terror it was purporting to try to stop.[xxxii]
All They Need is an “Arab Spring”!
Another Jihad Denial gambit involves the fairy tale which claims that once the bad corrupt dictators in the Islamic Middle East are removed, and the people are given a “democratic alternative,” Islam will democratize and everything will be fine. This is how the West projects ridiculous leftist assumptions onto Islam and deceives itself.
A perfect example of this distorted way of thinking was found in the so-called “Arab Spring” — which the West convinced itself was a democratic movement driven by the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. The “Arab Spring” was, in reality, just a simple impulse toward an Islamist Winter. Its main objective was to construct and impose Sharia as ruling legal system. Anyone with common sense could have easily understood this from the start, since in all of the “Arab Spring” demonstrations there was not one speech, or one placard, that could be found stating “Down With Sharia” or “Separation between Mosque and State.” Author Nonie Darwish pointed out this gargantuan elephant in the room:
As I watched the TV coverage of the massive protests, I was desperately searching for a brave poster proclaiming something new and daring — a poster that demanded reformation of the system and not merely removal of the dictator, along with slogans of freedom and democracy — but I could not find any. This is what I wanted to see: “Separation of mosque and state,” “Removal of sharia from the Egyptian constitution,” “Equal rights for all,” or “Equal rights for women” — better yet, “The beating of women is not a husband’s right.” To my disappointment, I did not see any signs like this.[xxxiii]
Darwish was absolutely right, but the West needed to convince itself that the “Arab Spring” was a yearning for democracy, even though everything that was transpiring suggested the exact opposite. Consequently, leftists nurtured the fairy tale that there was a democratic impulse in a region and a belief system where a large percentage of Muslims advocate Jihad, hate Jews, and support the stoning of adulterers, the killing of apostates, female genital mutilation and many other brutal aspects of Sharia law.[xxxiv] Consequently, the “Arab Spring” amounted to precisely what it was intended to amount to: more Jihad and Sharia. And that is why it created the Islamic State.[xxxv]
Don’t Be Racist!
Another crucial component of the Jihad Denial scam is the argument that anyone who says anything critical about Islam is a racist. And since most people in the West now dread being labelled such, this slander has silenced the society at large in terms of the truth about Islam.
This leftist tactic has succeeded because, as writer Daniel Greenfield has noted, the Left has achieved the racialization of Islam — even though Islam is not even a race.[xxxvi] Referring to this con job as the “Big Lie,” Robert Spencer writes about its spurious charges and his own efforts to fight them:
I have repeated more times than I could possibly recall: “What race is the jihad mass murder of innocent civilians again? I keep forgetting.” I’ve pointed out almost as often that Muslims who believe that their god is commanding them to wage war against and subjugate those who don’t believe as they do come in all races, and that race has nothing to do with their imperatives.[xxxvii]
These simple truths, unfortunately, have not made a dent in the Unholy Alliance’s tactic on this score. And the Obama administration empowered the whole charade by launching the effort to make “Middle Eastern and North African” a race.[xxxviii] Since the principal beneficiaries of this move would be Muslim Arabs, the intent was obviously to give Muslims special privileges — and to bolster the charge of “racism” against anyone daring to tell the truth about Jihad or Sharia.[xxxix]
Thus, because Islam has surreally acquired racial status, it is now considered racist to criticize Islam, a protected status that Islam, and no other religion, possesses. The absurdity of the whole thing becomes obvious when looking at the Unholy Alliance’s treatment of ex-Muslims, whom leftists freely criticize without the slightest worry that their condemnations may be inherently “racist.”
It would be important at this point to reflect on a theme stressed by author Shelby Steele in his masterpiece The Content of Our Character, where Steele focuses on white people’s need to feel innocent in the struggle over race in America.[xl] He discusses this issue in the black-white context, but his point is extremely relevant to Jihad Denial today. Indeed, since the Left has succeeded in racializing Islam, we begin to understand better why so many Americans surrender to the Unholy Alliance’s bullying on this issue: because they want to feel innocent in the face of accusations of racism. They are, therefore, terrified to say anything about Islam that the Unholy Alliance might frown upon.
Steele also reveals how, in race relations in America, white guilt has translated into black power.[xli] The Unholy Alliance knows this all too well — and now that it has racialized Islam, it has successfully translated white guilt into Islamic power.
White People Can’t Understand Islam!
Connected to the You are racist! slander is another farcical smear: that white people can’t understand Islam. By this point, we begin to witness so much pathology and contradiction that it is difficult to keep track of it all. But let us try:
The Unholy Alliance lectures truth-tellers about Islam that they must not paint all Muslims with the same broad brush, because Not all Muslims do that! And yet, the truth-tellers are simultaneously told that they can’t understand Islam anyway because Muslims are actually one big racial group within which everyone is the same — and presumably dark-skinned. The illogic here is represented best by journalist and novelist Rula Jebreal, who adamantly insists that non-Muslims are all white and simply cannot understand Islamic culture, which apparently consists of exclusively dark-skinned Muslims.
As a guest on a segment on “CNN Tonight” with Don Lemon, Jebreal lectured former CIA analyst Buck Sexton about Islam, telling him that because “white people like yourself” don’t understand “the language, culture and religion” of Islam, they are incapable of understanding the Islamic State. While Jebreal’s chastisement of Sexton might have been a bit confusing for many Unholy Alliance members who insist that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, her position became more intriguing when she continued her reprimand of Sexton: “You need to understand what is appealing — what is the message that ISIS actually is selling in these prison cells. And what they are selling online.”[xlii] Here Jebreal implied that there was, lo and behold, such a thing as an Islamic “culture” after all. And, in her view, there was something “appealing” about it to many Muslims — all of whom, apparently, are part of one race, that white people simply can’t understand.
To summarize the twisted logic here: A white person cannot understand all the dark Muslim people who find Islamic terrorism appealing — but Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. Robert Spencer made the heroic effort to untangle this mystery wrapped inside an enigma. Wondering about Jebreal’s thesis, and all the white people who just happen to be Muslims, he notes:
That there are “white people” who are fervent believers in Islam, such has Hamas-linked CAIR’s Ibrahim Hooper, the late al-Qaeda jihadi Adam Gadahn, the Marin County Taliban John Walker Lindh, North Carolina jihad plotters Justin Sullivan and Donald Ray Morgan, would-be Wichita jihad bomber Terry Lee Loewen, Boston Marathon jihad bombers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, UK “Sharia patrol” leader Jordan Horner, Brandeis Professor Joseph Lumbard, and so very many others, escapes her, and demonstrates the hollowness of her analysis — and CNN’s.[xliii]
On the same theme, Daniel Greenfield affirms:
Also Islamist groups love to drag out white American converts as fronts. Like Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR or Ingrid Mattson of ISNA. So according to Rula Jebreal, Hooper and Mattson also don’t get Islam. But presumably they’re useful idiots for the Islamic cause.[xliv]
Greenfield also observes that those who don’t understand Islam include Rula Jebreal’s Jewish banker husband. That might be horrifying to Jebreal herself, Greenfield points out, because:
Arabs like Rula Jebreal, who originally comes from ‘67 Israel, are classified as white by the census bureau. They’ve demanded a special minority classification MENA, because in real life, minority privilege beats that imaginary ‘white privilege’ that leftists love to rant about. (If you’re lobbying to be classified as a minority, you know white privilege is a myth.) Which would mean that Mohammed was white.[xlv]
And so, perhaps it all ends up making sense why terrorist Muslims are not really authentic Muslims after all. “If white people don’t understand Islam,” Greenfield notes, “that would include its founder. That must be why Arab Muslims keep misunderstanding their religion.”[xlvi]
There is No Islam!
All of these Jihad Denial strategies are, in the end, intentionally doing one basic thing: painting Islam as never doing anything at all — unless it can be praised by Muslims and the Left. In other words, when Islam maims and oppresses, it never stands for anything. Spencer has referred to this Jihad Denial tactic, making the crucial point that, “For Leftists and Islamic supremacists, it is a cardinal sin to essentialize Islam — that is, to dare to suggest that it actually teaches and stands for anything in particular.”[xlvii]
We Need to Have Religious Freedom!
While deniers insist, on the one hand, that Islam doesn’t stand for anything and, therefore, cannot be essentialized, they contradict themselves by maintaining that it stands for a great deal — since it is actually a religion and, therefore, cannot be touched. This is because religious freedom is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and also because, according to leftists, no faith propagates hatred and violence — a mantra that Obama repeatedly maintained throughout his administration to exonerate Islam.[xlviii]
Suffice it to say that while the Unholy Alliance defends Islam by maintaining that no faith sanctions violence, it spends a considerable amount of time alleging that Christianity and Judaism do exactly that. In any case, many people are afraid to say anything negative about Islam because it is a “religion” and it is assumed that all religions must be “good” and cannot possibly sanction hatred and violence. The problem, of course, is that Islam is not so much a religion as a political ideology.[xlix] Moreover, and again, it does preach hatred and violence.
Thus, Islam is able to continue its malicious agenda in the U.S. because it receives protected status under freedom of religion statutes within the country (while not standing for anything at all). Because of this protection, Muslims are also able to continue building and congregating in their mosques without any questions or even government surveillance.[l] And yet, the empirical evidence demonstrates that Islamic mosques are often covers for violence and Jihad.[li]
In the end, when we examine all of these different arguments that are used to sustain Jihad Denial, we find not only a shrewd deception, but also a ruthlessness and heartlessness. The whole paradigm is a reflection of the Left’s callous disregard for the victims of Jihad and Sharia, victims who include Muslims, such as Muslim girls and women who suffer immensely under Islamic gender apartheid, where they are afflicted by every barbarity from female genital mutilation to forced marriage, forced veiling and forced segregation. [lii] Mantras such as Not all Muslims do that! do absolutely nothing to defend these victims — or future victims. And they do absolutely nothing to protect the world from Islamic Jihad and stealth Jihad. To the contrary, they enable our enemy.
Now that we have understood the nature and agenda of Jihad Denial, we move on to demonstrate how it manifests itself and spawns an environment that invariably turns a blind eye to the connection between Islam and Islamic terrorist attacks. The next chapter unveils real-life stories about a civilization that is under attack by Islam while it simultaneously engages in suicide by seeing no Islam at all.
Comments are closed.
