David Horowitz Debates the Ground Zero Mosque


Pages: 1 2

The following is a debate between David Horowitz and Daniel Luban reprinted from Tabletmag.com.

When Daniel Luban published an essay in Tablet Magazine last week finding resonances between what he called Islamophobic opposition to the Park51 Islamic center and past anti-Semitism, one comment on the piece jumped out at us. “This article is in serious denial,” began a brief, angry response from David Horowitz, the conservative intellectual and activist and the author, most recently, of A Cracking of the Heart, a book about his daughter. We invited Horowitz and Luban to extend their debate about Luban’s theory. Here is their exchange.

MARC TRACY, Tablet Magazine: David, in your comment on Dan’s piece, you said that “Jew hatred is part of the gospel of Islam and the practice of all Muslim states in the world today.” By contrast, a premise of Dan’s article is that there are in the world a relatively small group of Islamists—fundamentalists who subscribe to a violent, anti-Semitic, mutant strain of Islam—and, for the most part, ordinary Muslims who do no such thing, and that, contrary to the arguments of writers like Andrew McCarthy, most American Muslims are not Islamists. How do you respond to that? Is the problem with Islam or with Islamists? And if it’s with Islamists, how influential are Islamists in America? Are the people behind the Islamic center Islamists?

DAVID HOROWITZ: Like many Jews who are in denial about the existential threat to Israel and to Jews generally from the Islamic world, Daniel Luban thinks that the radical, Jew-hating element in Islam is relatively small, and consequently the threat is a pathology, which people like him call “Islamophobia.” Among such deniers there is a notable absence of attention to what the Islamic world actually does and says in relation to Jews or how seriously Muslims take the word of their God, who refers to Jews as “apes and pigs” and calls for their extermination (as per this infamous and well-known saying of the prophet: “The day of Judgment will come when Muslims fight the Jews and kill them”). Here are some corrective observations:

After the Sept. 11 attacks there were several public opinion surveys conducted in the Muslim world about Muslim views of Osama Bin Laden and his terror war against “crusaders and Jews.” The number of Muslims who supported Osama and the attacks ranged from a low 10 percent, or 150 million Muslims, to 50 percent, or 750 million (the latter figure coming from a poll conducted by Al Jazeera). These cannot be dismissed as insignificant minorities, even if reduced by a factor of 10.

The Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—head of a nation of 70 million and a man who claims to speak in the name of Islam—has called for wiping Israel from the face of the earth, a comment seconded by a former prime minister of Malaysia. Leaders of the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank are openly opposed to the existence of the Jewish state, officially celebrate mass murderers of Jewish civilians as “martyrs” and “saints,” and run a school system that teaches kindergarteners to hate Jews and aspire to kill them. The charter of the Islamist terror organization Hamas calls for Israel’s extinction in the name of Allah, while the head of Hezbollah, the largest terrorist army in the world, armed with 30,000-plus rockets courtesy of Syria and Iran, has called for the liquidation of Israel and the extermination of the Jews.

That’s the open and frank admission side of the ledger, the millions of Muslims with genocidal designs on the Jews. Copping to genocide by the way is something that Hitler never dared to do. He thought it prudent to keep the Final Solution hidden until it was a fait accompli, lest he incite civilized opposition to his plan. In contrast, the demand for a second Holocaust has been trumpeted from the Islamic rooftops, and there has been no official opposition from the Islamic world. This is a reasonable indication that these open calls are the tip of a very ugly iceberg of Jew hatred that runs the length and breadth of Muslim ummah. There are some 57 Islamic nations in the world, and not one of them has condemned these genocidal proclamations. Au contraire. They have added their own condemnations of Israeli crimes in hundreds of U.N. resolutions they sponsored. But there is not a single U.N. resolution condemning 60 years of terrorist acts by Palestinians and Arabs, beginning with the creation of the Fedayeen in 1949. Not a single one.

The same silence over genocidal intentions blankets virtually all the mosques in America, at least 80 percent of which are funded by the rulers of Saudi Arabia, the most bigoted promoter of jihadism and its Jew-hating ideology in the world today. The same can be said of the principal Muslim organizations in the United States, the Muslim American Society, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

All of these organizations are elements of the Muslim Brotherhood network, which spawned al-Qaida and Hamas. (CAIR is a direct spinoff of Hamas.) None of them have condemned Hezbollah and Hamas or their patrons in Teheran. The same is true of the Muslim Students Association, representing most Muslim students in American universities, which is also a part of the Muslim Brotherhood network. The Muslim Students Association is currently conducting a nationwide campaign to support the Islamic crusade to eliminate the Jewish state, which it refers to as “occupied Palestine.” When I confronted a former officer of the Muslim Student Association on the University of California, San Diego, campus and asked her if she were for or against a genocide of the Jews she said, “For it.” Refusal to condemn Hezbollah and Hamas, which in my experience is universal among Muslim Students Associations, is tantamount to such an endorsement. (You can see our exchange here.) The same Judeophobic campaign is now a principal focus of the secular left, although these secularists don’t seem to fully grasp the implications of their support. All these elements are also supporting the Ground Zero mosque whose leader also finds Islamic terrorism “too complex” to condemn.

These are troubling indicators of evil afoot. Dismissing them as figments of a conspiratorial paranoia is a sign of intellectual bankruptcy and a form of psychological denial. It is not an argument that anyone, let alone a Jew, should take seriously.

DANIEL LUBAN: David Horowitz’s response to my article is primarily devoted to reciting a familiar litany of examples of anti-Semitism in Muslim-majority countries. Many of his arguments in this regard are cherry-picked or otherwise misleading, but I won’t spend time answering them, for they are irrelevant to the point of my piece. My argument was not about attitudes toward Jews in Syria or Saudi Arabia, but about attitudes toward Muslims in America.

Even if I were to concede all of Horowitz’s arguments about the prevalence of anti-Semitism in Muslim-majority countries, this would not answer the central question, which is whether the theories of the American “anti-jihadi” movement are a sane response to the situation in which we find ourselves. If they are not, if—as I argued—they represent a kind of bigotry and paranoia akin to anti-Semitism, Know-Nothingism, or McCarthyism, it is not particularly relevant whether equally paranoid or odious views are prevalent elsewhere in the world.

For Horowitz’s defense of the “anti-jihadis” to hold water, he needs to show not merely that many Muslims in other countries hold objectionable views, but that Muslim-Americans are actually engaged in the kind of conspiracy against the United States that people like Andrew McCarthy and Pamela Geller posit. On this count, his arguments are remarkably thin. The primary piece of evidence he offers to show that most Muslim-Americans are genocidal anti-Semites is that not enough of them for his liking are willing to publicly denounce Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups.

One does not need to be fond of either group to notice how shaky the logic is here. Peter King, the hawkish New York congressman who has been a leader of the anti-mosque campaign, is a longtime apologist for the IRA, and I similarly imagine that it would be nearly impossible to get New York Jewish politicians like Sen. Chuck Schumer or Rep. Anthony Weiner to publicly label as “terrorists” Zionist militant groups like the Irgun or the Stern Gang. What follows from this? That King, Schumer, and Weiner are terrorist conspirators against the United States? I suspect the reason that even many Muslim-Americans who privately abhor Hamas and Hezbollah’s attacks on civilians are reluctant to “denounce” them to David Horowitz is that they realize, correctly, that he will simply pocket these denunciations and use them in the service of a broader Likudnik agenda that they find abhorrent.

The YouTube video that Horowitz posts is unintentionally revealing in this regard. A UCSD student confronts Horowitz over his allegation that her campus Muslim Students Association has financial ties to terrorist groups and presses him to provide some evidence for this claim. Rather than doing so, Horowitz—who is nothing if not a savvy showman—quickly changes the subject to the student’s own personal attitudes toward Hamas. Of course, whether an individual college student is willing to publicly denounce Hamas has nothing whatsoever to do with the factual question of whether the UCSD student association has financial links to terrorist groups, which Horowitz is content to insinuate without providing any evidence.

To determine whether people like McCarthy and Geller represent a measured response to a real threat or a hysterical response to a conspiracy of their own imagining, it might be helpful to examine the central claims that they make. Let’s leave aside the most obviously insane bits (Bill Ayers is the real author of Obama’s memoir; Malcolm X is Obama’s real father) and focus on their views about the Muslim threat to the United States. Does Horowitz really believe that the goal of the large majority of Muslim-Americans is “to supplant American constitutional democracy with sharia law”? Does he really believe that Muslims who privately live according to religious values within their own communities are doing so purely instrumentally, as a way to take over the country and impose these values on everyone else? Does he really believe that the president is a “neocommunist” who is secretly working in cahoots with these Islamists to implement a shared totalitarian vision in the United States?

If he genuinely does believe these things, I admit that there simply isn’t much more that I can say to him. But if he doesn’t—as I suspect he doesn’t—then I have to wonder how he feels about the fact that these views and those similar to them are rapidly becoming ubiquitous on the American right. Many hawks seem to feel that the Pamela Gellers of the world may be nutty and misguided, but that they make useful shock troops for fighting these political battles, so it’s best simply to hold one’s nose and make good use of them. It seems to me that there is something very dangerous in this logic, and that the anti-jihadis—egged on by conservative elites like Newt Gingrich, Bill Kristol, and Horowitz himself—are leading the country into a very ugly place.

MARC TRACY: David, I think Daniel is conceding—or if not conceding, at least saying that for the sake of argument he would concede—your point about Muslim anti-Semitism in other parts of the world, but he is challenging you on the question of Muslim anti-Semitism in the United States specifically. Can it happen here and does it happen here? Is the mosque a manifestation of it, or a potential manifestation?

DAVID HOROWITZ: Daniel Luban has failed to understand my comments and therefore dodged the issue between us. A sign held up at the counter-demonstration by supporters of the Ground Zero mosque summarizes the real nub of our contention: “Groundless Fear Is the Real Enemy.” Is it?

The point of my response was not that there is “anti-Semitism” and not just “in Muslim countries” but that there is a global Muslim movement for a genocide of the Jews, beginning with the destruction of the Jewish state; and that this movement was spawned by the Muslim Brotherhood and is supported by the major Muslim organizations in the United States including the main supporters of the Ground Zero mosque, and wittingly or unwittingly, enabled by their allies on the political left.

Luban does not challenge a single fact I presented, which shows how deaf, dumb, and blind critics of the “anti-jihadis,” as Luban calls us, can be. Luban studiously ignores the elaborate documentation of the political beliefs and aims of the Muslim Brotherhood network and of Islam itself, which we have presented and instead attempts to draw ludicrous parallels designed to show a moral equivalence between Jewish and Muslim terrorists and their apologists. The difference is obvious to all but the politically obtuse. When some Jews commit acts that are heinous, Jews condemn them, they don’t build $100-million monuments on or near the site where the crimes were committed. Only Islam would build a mosque—the Dome of the Rock—right on top of the holiest place of another religion and then name a terrorist army (the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade) after it. The silence of the central organizations of the Muslim world both here and abroad in the face of atrocities committed in the name of their God and their refusal to condemn by name those who commit them is both deafening and telling; and the failure of Daniel Luban and the left generally to appreciate this is ominous for Americans and Jews.

Pages: 1 2

  • proxywar

    "Since I have limited space here, I won’t spend it answering David Horowitz’s latest attacks on the imam—suffice it to say that they are as cherry-picked and misleading the other charges that have been brought forth against him."

    Yet you haven't proved how this is so.

    "Horowitz flirts with these conspiracy theories without giving any real evidence for the allegation that the bulk of Muslim-Americans are genocide-minded Muslim Brotherhood sleeper agents."

    At least there is some evidence in his favor.You make the claim that a bulk of them aren't this way based on nothing more than your good faith. You don't have any evidence to support your claim. I have to go with the evidence.

    • ROBERT

      Well, I think Mr. Horowitz gave some evidence: the deafening silence of those who should speak out. Some 9000 rockets this year alone shot from Gaza into Israel so as to murder Jews. The words of the Prophet to his faithful to kill Jews. The calls of Hamas and Hisbolah for the extinction of the Jews. The Interfada where thousands of Jews were murdered by Jihadist suicide bombers, the raising of Muslim children to hate Jews and to call for their death (I have seen a few of these movies myself), the refusal of Muslim leaders like Rauf to condemn terrorist organizations who call for the destruction of Isael.

      I could go on. But the point is there is only one way to go with this evidence. It's overwelming. Speaking of cherry picking, really, how does it make the world safer for Jews that some or most Muslims do not call for their extinction. 50 million who hate a Jew's guts should be enough evidence to worry anyone.

      I thought Horowitz's adversary was a sophist. Hew as the cherry picker.

      ROBERT

    • Philosopherking

      Your kind actually uses the phrase 'conspiracy' or 'phobia' to characterize any idea that opposes your as a psychiatric disorder which implies that it is something that can be treated with the proper medication. Its fits inline with your thinking because communist also labeled opposing thoughts as things that had to fixed by state hospitals.

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    David Horowitz made a very strong case against the 9/11 mosque. Yet it is impossible in principle to convince Luban because his presumptions are opposite to those of Horowitz and to the very reality. The proper framing of the 9/11 mosque is not legal or proprietary, but that of national security during the time of war. Although Mr. Luban is regrettably and ludicrously correct that America is not at war on Islam, Islam is at war on America (and the rest of the world): disregarding whether religion-of-peace Bush or America-always-been-Islamic Obama care to acknowledge it.
    <a href="http://www.resonoelusono.com/Imminent.htm” target=”_blank”>www.resonoelusono.com/Imminent.htm

    Moreover: just 10 years ago Islam succeeded in the most heinous and devastating attack on American soil ever. Erection of an 11 story swastika near a national cemetery of victims of unfinished war is not a proprietary issue, Mr. Luban. It is an issue of dignity, national security and self preservation all lacking to you.

  • Andres de Alamaya

    Call me an anti-Semite if you wish but there seems to be a lunatic smidgin of DNA in a disproportionate numb er of Jews that plays right into the hands of anti-Semites and Luban offers a good example of this. It is useless to argue with that type as to kick a brick wall and it is counterproductive to give him space.

  • watchful

    Excellent article, David.

  • jacob

    I rather be safe than sorry and I woldn't want to wake up one morning with Shaaria
    law imposed on me.

    As to moderate Islam, is this fellow going to deny that learning of the 9/11 horror, the Muslims of Queens were dancing in tbe streets and giving away candy, until somebody
    realized the potential; for trouble the "celebrators" might have ran into and they stopped
    it ??

    I will not enter into rethorics, knowing damned well that a deft maipulator can prove black is white and then back to black is not white, which is what brougth to power the
    demagogue we have in the White House.

  • Hank Rearden

    I am reading William Manchester's excellent second volume of Winston Churchill's life which covers the 1930's. It used to be that the blindness of Western and particularly British leadership during the 1930's to the Nazi threat was a mystery, but we are seeing with each passing year in our struggle with radical Islam what happened. It turns out that a surprising number of people simply choose to stick their heads in the sand and ignore a gathering threat, no matter what the factual record is. And this is true even though totalitarians have the quirk that they tell us openly what they want and what they intend to do.

    Now we are confronted with radical Islam. It has several vectors, including the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudi Wahabi movement, the latter manifested by the introduction of radical madrassas and mosques in various parts of the world, including the US of A. We have the written intent of the Muslim Brotherhood to replace our "miserable" culture here in the U.S., and, of course, its plans for Israel, which are articulated in the Hamas charter.

    Thank goodness we have the David Horowitz's of this world to make the case and find the vocabulary to fight this war. The Victory Mosque is a battle in this war. It is meant to commemorate the victory of radical Islam in destroying the World Trade Center and, let us not forget, striking the Pentagon and attempting to destroy the Capitol.

    This is not, in the end, about "freedom of religion" because radical Islam is not a religion in the sense that we, and the Constitution, understand the term. It is a political movement in the same way that Communism and National Socialism were. We are going to have to change our habits of mind and perhaps even the wording of the First Amendment to meet this challenge to our civilization. As Justice Jackson said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

    Just to finish with a specific, what quote about Rauf does Mr. Luban understand to be "out of context?" Rauf is a radical, and we know this because he will not characterize Hamas as a terrorist organization. This "test" has turned out to be such a powerful forensic tool, I have no doubt that the radicals will soon find a way to do so, probably saying it in English and taking it back in Arabic, in the form used by Arafat. But for now, he is revealed for who he is, but Mr. Luban simply refuses to accept it. Sorry, Mr. Luban, but to paraphrase Bob Dylan, "you don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows."

  • tim heekin

    What "useful idiots" such as Luban hope to accomplish is the stuff psychological pathologies are made. When the earth is deemed flat one may only wonder with mouth agape. I would make one observation inasmuch as I don't believe it is possible, except in a mentally sick manner, for an arab to be an anti-semite since the arab is semitic. Of course a muslim arab or any other muslim is taught to be anti-everyone who is not muslim. The GZ mosque, in arabic "mosque" (masjid) means "place of battle," and all other mosque are, if not yet jihad active, sleeper cells.

    • http://imataxpayertoo.wordpress.com kathy

      I have recently read that up to 80% of mosques in the U.S. are teaching the hate-filled rhetoric to its followers. Can't recall the source, but it's on the net.

  • Gamaliel Isaac

    David Horowitz cites massive evidence for islamic intolerance and Daniel Luban accuses him of cherry picking. The truth is that Mr. Horowitz left out most of the examples of Islamic intolerance. He doesn't have the space to list them all. If David Horowitz listed the crimes of Jack the Ripper and Jack the Ripper was a Muslim, Daniel Luban would accuse him of cherry picking.
    Another irritating thing about Luban is his characterization of the Irgun and the "Stern Gang" as terrorist groups. This is part of the pathological moral equivalence of the left who has to always show that the good guys are just as bad as the bad guys. He should read and learn something before pontificating about what he knows nothing about.

    • ziontruth

      There is a way the Irgun and the Stern Gang could have been equivalent to Hamas and Hezbollah:

      If their had purpose had been the placing, not just of British Mandate Palestine, but of Britain itself, under Jewish rule.

      That word "if." So small and short a word, so vast and gaping the difference it makes.

      • ziontruth

        Correction, "If their had purpose had been…" to "If their purpose had been…"

      • Gamaliel Isaac

        Even if the Irgun and the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel who were labeled the Stern Gang by the British Gangsters who ran Palestine, wanted to place Britain under Jewish rule they wtill wouldn't have been equivalent to Hamas and Hezbollah because Hamas and Hezbollah deliberately murder civilians and put civilians in harms way. Even when the Irgun put bombs in the King David Hotel in order to destroy the files of the British Secret Service it warned the British Service to get out and to get out the inhabitants of the hotel. Can anyone imagine Hezbollah or Hamas doing such a thing?

    • Philosopherking

      Accusing people of cherry picking is there way of avoiding any thought since it would allow people to use the facts that they brought into the debate. It would be nice if they would just say something like yes but… They choose not to and just accuse people of cherry picking.

  • Ocean_Breeze

    For the first time in my life I am proud of Italy for not recognizing Islam as an official religion due to Islam's radical Imam's and lack of equality among the sexes.

    The world including America would be well adised to do the same!

    • ROBERT

      VIVA ITALIA! PISAN!

  • Jane Baer

    Neither debater mentioned the result of a msque so close to ground zero and how that would be read by radical muslims. The picture of it overlooking the site, which for some time will continue to be empty (and human bones are still sometimes found there). Right after 9-11-01 the air was filled with dust. Humans had been vaporized, in the dust was human cells. As a New Yorker with a gallery blocks from the world trade center and as someone raised near New York with a close childhood friend who was crushed to death in the stairwell of the World Trade Center tower he was in as it collapsed on him, I say NO.

  • Beverley

    This 'everlasting hatred" is currently embodied in Islam but is older than Islam. It goes back to Ishmael, Abraham's eldest son, who was DISENFRANCHISED of his inheritance (in his own and his mother Hagar's mind) by the birth of and election of Isacc
    This division between the child of the handmaid and the choosen seed of Abraham is directly relevant to at least a third of everyone now living.

    Muslims believe that Ishmael was the choosen seed of Abraham, and celebrate the feast of EID to commemorate their version of the Abraham story, the sacrifice of Ishmael. As Ishmael was supposedly disenfranchised by Sarai and Abraham, being evicted from Abraham's tent, so the Arab Muslim world nurtures that same sense of resentful disenfranchisement, focusing their resentment on Jews and Christians.

    Then there was Issac, who's wife Rebekah had twins who STRUGGLED TOGETHER within her womb and was told that she had TWO NATIONS in her womb. The two nations have never stopped fighting. Jacob who became Israel after he stole the birthright from Esau and Esau descendants became ….guess who? http://www.moriel.org/MorielArchive/index.php/teachings/...

    • http://www.okcteaparty.org Dan Ward

      Bev — BINGO!

      • Beverley

        Dan – do you think it registered with anyone else? Why they have been fighting forever and will go on forever!!!

  • http://netzero.com Steve Chavez

    WHAT IF THE MOSQUE IS BLOWN UP BY AN INDIVIDUAL BENT ON REVENGE, A GROUP, OR EVEN A MUSLIM WHO WANTS MORE HATRED WHICH COULD LEAD TO A CIVIL WAR BETWEEN BELIEVERS AND NON-BELIEVERS, MUSLIMS AGAINST THE JEWS/CHRISTIANS/INFIDELS, THE RIGHT AND LEFT THAT SUPPORTS MUSLIMS AND HATE AGAINST THE U.S., BROTHER AGAINST BROTHER, WITH THE GOAL OF BRINGING DOWN THE UNITED STATES?

    A Tennessee mosque is set on fire. I bet $50 that a Muslim did it and if the "Ground Zero Mosque" has the same fate, I bet $100 that a Muslim did it!

    • antidemoniclib

      Then Obama can conveniently declare martial law and declare himself president for life.

      • Lori

        We Better not be surprised! I think He has intended Martial Law and has it all set up to play. We Need not to be afraid.

  • Chezwick_Mac

    LUBAN: "It is likely that radicals would be disgusted both with the center’s conciliatory theology and with the overall message it sends—namely, that the Unites States is so welcoming to Muslims that it is willing to let them practice their faith anywhere they choose, even a few blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attacks."

    Luban makes two assumptions here that are entirely misplaced…

    1) How does he KNOW the "Center" will propagate a "conciliatory theology"? Isn't it just as likely or more so that the Center will grow to resemble the 80% of American mosques dominated by Salifists and Wahhabis?

    2) Radicals are more likely to interpret our magnanimity as weakness than anything else. The "disgust" that Luban is predicting they will feel is much more likely to be displayed as triumphalism.

    Daniel Lubin reminds me of so many other liberals. Behind the veneer of sophistication and culture is a woefully uninformed individual.

  • http://groundzeromosquetheamericanway.blogspot.com/ Duane
  • USMCSniper

    The Mosque is only a front. This is to be an Islamic Jihadist training center,

  • heytrud

    The mosque should be built then bombed! Obama shall visit it, then bombed down with them all inside. That would stop them all. But, Obama won't show up, he is well aware of the dangers of getting killed inside the horrific mosque.

  • http://www.apollospaeks.blogtownhall.com ApolloSpeaks

    JEWISH TERRORISTS

    !If, as Daniel Luban says, the Irgun and Stern gang were terrorists for overthowing British rule in Palestine then what does that make the Founding Fathers?

    • Philosopherking

      It made them non-terrorist because they didn't plan their war strategy around attacking civilians when they weren't ready or attacking children.

  • suzanne

    I think it is high time that the United States as well as other civilized nations start to define what it means by "religion". Islam in a totalitarian, murderous screed and has no place within our borders. If it means that an amendment should be added to our consitution outlawing it, so be it. Maybe if the entire world shows its complete disapproval of this awful ideology, Islam will collapse one day of its own accord.

  • Michael Wassil

    Daniel Luban is a complete idiot and total fool if he actually believes what he's saying. He'll maintain his righteousness to the instant his head separates from his neck.

  • http://schizomind.wordpress.com Stat Quo

    There has been a mosque near ground zero. Although I think this mosque should not be built, as quite clearly it is creating to many problems. A mosque could be built anywhere, placing it near ground zero is poor judgment.

  • 080

    People who are opposed to the ground down people mosque are accused of Islamophobia. I think it would be more appropriate to use the word Islamoleariness. That's because in 1993 there was a mosque out of which were launched on the Twin Towers with plans to blow up the Holland tunnel, the Brooklyn Bridge and who knows what else. The Imam in the Santa Claus hat is in prison along with I don't know how many others. His lawyer Lynn Stewart is also serving time. Then there are other Islamoleariness events like the Fort Hood massacre, the Fort Dix planned attack and many other such events. Then of course, there were the planes that flew into the towers. It doesn't help at all to say that the buildings fell down because there were bombs planted beforehand. Who knows? They may have been planted by Islamists.

  • Fiddler

    PC is blind. To quote Sergeant Shultz: "I KNOW nothing; I SEE nothing".

  • No Dhimwit

    Snore. Luban's position is lame, and Horowitz's is solidly based on fact. That's the bottom line. Islam sucks, and anyone defending it is nuts.

  • Philosopherking

    Whenever a conservative like David makes an argument it always comes off as his reasoning for it which allows others to analyze the thinking behind it but whenever the left talks it seems like the attitude is 'we are right and this is the truth' without any reasoning to back it up. Daniel Lublin's argument assumes that we all hate muslims and the proof is that people are protesting the mosque. This is a circular kind of logic in which the conclusion and the assumption behind it are the same. People hate muslims–people protest mosque–therefore people must hate muslims because because they are protesting the mosque. Do you see how the conclusion rest on the presupposed assumption. In fact, it seems like they are identical.

  • suggestion

    The sane response to the Mosque controversy would be to ban religious funding from countries such as Saudi Arabia et al that do not themselves have freedom of religion. It could be the "Religious Freedom Reciprocity Act". Saudi Arabia does not have any First Amendment right to fund religious and educational institutions in the US.

  • mark

    Islam has a serious case of God-envy, and hate themselves and Jews and Christians – but most intensely Jews- because they know in their bones their God is derivative. Their God is an unoriginal and lazy God, like the people He supposedly leads. They are a dormant and indeed submissive people who have little beyond some stupid paeans to ignorance and mindless ritual which they call prayer. And the hate! What a creative and civilizing force, hate.
    Let's see them boldly go where no one has gone before motivated by hate, fear and envy.

  • Albert Himoe

    Daniel Luban: "I will not pretend to anything more than an interested layman’s knowledge of Islam as a religion."

    I know not of the subject, yet I feel competent to debate it. What lunatic arrogance!

  • bdouglasaf1980

    What I found amazing right away was when luban said, "Bill Ayers is the real author of Obama’s memoir; Malcolm X is Obama’s real father". He is misdirecting the argument. He is implying that Geller or Spencer made such claims. He next challenges David to deny his agreement with these when they were not claimed.

    He is a standard liberal. He is conceited and or ignorant of facts. Facts do not matter to people such as he.

    When he says, "If he genuinely does believe these things, I admit that there simply isn’t much more that I can say to him.", he shows his arrogance. I think at this point I would have said, "I can see you are a complete ideologue stuck in your beliefs. You are quiet right, we have nothing further to discuss. However, I will now assume the role of instructor to child and attempt to release you from your impaired judgment.

  • Yetwave

    All Islamic "culture" is is Islam.
    Its name means "submit". Its house of worship means "place of struggle".