Spencer & Geller - BBC 'Persona Non Grata'

[Teddy Bear]

With nearly 21,100 deadly Islamic terrorist attacks perpetrated worldwide since 9/11, it is clear that the mindset behind them is a clear threat to our society. 2 experts on the subject are Robert Spencer, the man who runs Jihad Watch, and Pamela Geller.

The EDL recently invited the pair to the UK and talk to their group to coincide with a rally to take place at the murder site of Lee Rigby in Woolwich. However, pro-Islamists together with their appeasing left wing lobby have been doing their best to put pressure on the Home Secretary to prevent the pair entering Britain.

Naturally the BBC is doing their best to facilitate the Islamists and create an outcry to show just how disharmonious it would be for our country to have expertise to combat radical Islam.

Robert Spencer had 2 encounters with the BBC, one on TV via Skype, and the other a radio programme on BBC Asian with somebody called Nihal.

He describes his experiences to some extent on Jihad Watch, but he includes links and a You Tube video for you to see it yourselves. Since the BBC radio show clip expires in a few days I have made a copy of it with all the relevant comments and interviews made. I think it's a very important piece to understand the ridiculous reason and logic used by the Islamists and left wingers to prevent important knowledge and understanding to be imparted first hand.

Here first is the background to his upcoming trip:

Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller to speak at EDL Rally in Woolwich, fascist jihad enablers call for UK entry ban

Pamela Geller has much detail on this here. And there's this: "Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer To Speak At EDL Rally In Woolwich, Campaigners Call For UK Entry Ban," by Jessica Elgot in the Huffington Post UK, June 20. That one starts out this way:

Anti-fascist campaigners have called on the home secretary to stop two far-right, anti-Islam activists from America speaking at an English Defence League rally in Woolwich, where Drummer Lee Rigby was murdered.

So you see, it is "far-right" to defend the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all before the law. It is "anti-fascist" to try to shut down those who defend these freedoms and rights. It is "hate" to defend Constitutional principles and free societies. It is "anti-fascist" to demonize those who defend those principles, and thereby to enable those who want to destroy them and create an authoritarian state. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

It all hinges, of course, on the false but endlessly repeated claim that Geller and I preach "hate." It is not, for the umpteenth time, hateful to defend freedom, or to point out how Islamic supremacist preachers often preach real hatred and incitement to violence. The fog of disinformation and propaganda is thick, and millions can't see clearly. But that doesn't change the truth.

Here's his article following the radio interview:

Audio: Robert Spencer on the BBC on whether freedom fighters should be barred from the UK

This morning about 4:15AM I was pulling an all-nighter, putting the finishing touches on a new pamphlet for the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Religion of Bigotry, which should be available in a few weeks, when I saw a BBC producer announce on Twitter that at the top of the hour there would be a discussion of the Leftist effort to keep Pamela Geller and me out of the country. So I wrote back: "How typical of the BBC to discuss this without giving us a chance to defend ourselves." To my surprise, the producer then contacted me and asked me to be on the show.

You can listen to the show here. It was a lot of fun, although I was a bit shaky from being up all night. There are numerous highlights. Don't miss Nihal, the host, repeatedly asking Nick Lowles of the Left-fascist group Hope Not Hate, which is trying to keep us out of the UK, to come up with even one quote from me demonstrating the "Islamophobia" so wicked as to warrant my being barred from the country. Lowles can't come up with a single quotation -- all he can offer is what he says was the text of an AFDI ad but was actually no such thing.

Don't miss also Nihal asking me to give him some passages of the Qur'an and Hadith that I found objectionable. After I gave him a few, he asked an imam whom he had on the program to explain the real meaning of the passages I had mentioned. The imam complained that he wasn't prepared to do so. Nihal responded incredulously, "But you're an imam!" The imam then repeated the usual tired "out of context" cliches but never offered any context that would render the passages benign.

Much of the discussion ended up centering on my book Did Muhammad Exist?, which Nihal kept trying to get me to say was objectionable as a thesis. I kept answering that there was nothing wrong with historical inquiry, that Jesus had been subjected to it, so why should Muhammad be exempt? At the end of the show the imam said, "He quotes Muhammad, then says he didn't exist," and Nihal thought this was an excellent point, but didn't give me a chance to answer. The obvious response is that Muslims believe he said and did certain things, and so it is important to know the content of the material in order to understand Islamic belief and practice, but it has no more historical value than the stories of Robin Hood. I wasn't allowed a chance to get that in, but after all, it was the BBC -- and a show that was much more fair than their usual standards.

I also just completed a video interview via Skype, also with the BBC. It should air later today; I'll give you details when I have them.

I heartily recommend listening to the radio clip to really see the bias and hypocrisy employed. Though for a time the host Nidal appears to be fair minded, it will become clear that he is really looking to justify banning Spencer from entering the UK.

Here's the following video from BBC TV:

Robert Spencer on the BBC on the Leftist push to keep freedom fighters out of the UK


This was on BBC TV today. And on BBC radio, I participated early this morning in a wild hour-long show featuring the Left-fascist who is trying to keep Pamela Geller and me out of the country and an imam who couldn't rebut my statements about the Qur'an.

Here's the interview with Tommy Robinson:

Worth also noting just who Fiyaz Mughal is. He was the second speaker in the video above used by the BBC to convince viewers that Robert's and Pamela's presence was bad for Britain, especially using the site of Lee Rigby's death.

This is the man who runs the Tell Mama project, which documents the anti-Muslim attacks in Britain. Following the Lee Rigby murder he claimed a huge rise in attacks, which turned out to be a vast exaggeration. As a result of his attempted deception, on June 10th, MP's decided to end funding for this organisation.

You notice that the BBC made no attempt to let the viewer know just who this 'speaker for freedom' is, nor challenge the hypocrisy for the way he had used the death of Lee Rigby.
-

[steevo]

Watching the video was like watching one of our typical anti-liberty leftist broadcasts. The audience is prepared with a totally slanted view, all negative setting the tone, then 17 seconds to keep themselves credible to many by allowing Spencer sandwiched inbetween to speak, then their final word and implicit justification of condemnation. Today's highly paid professionals in their finest. Like I said before Goebbels would be pleased.

[Teddy Bear]

I know the radio show I provide the audio for runs for nearly an hour but it's also well worth a listen.

You can really get the ridiculousness of the arguments used to try and counter the pure reason and logic used by Spencer. Each one of his detractors, including those who phone in, make themselves look foolish, which of course they are. Only one of the callers, a declared Christian woman, supported Spencer, and showed in her own faith she didn't fear those who had questions about it. A 'slap in the face' for those Muslims who can't tolerate just and fair criticism.

Shows how ridiculous the BBC has become to cover up their cowardice and appeasement by implying they are protecting Islam.

[steevo]

I think Spencer did well, he's very used to the argumentation from the Left. As much as the BBC guy tried and tried to discredit him he couldn't while Spencer discredited him in my opinion. But I only listened to portions of the audio. The woman who called Spencer racist and wanted Christianity, especially in America to be condemned was very ignorant. There has been a total of 8 people killed at clinics in this country and all but 1 occurred in the 90s. That kind of fanatical justice of which the overwhelming community of Christians here are the first to condemn is not preached nor even hinted at. A far cry and perfect example to shame the Muslim community.

[Teddy Bear]

So long as logic, reason, and good sense prevail, Spencer CANNOT be discredited. Those who attempt it show more about themselves than any good or genuine reason they claim they have on their side.

It's good to have a record of this exchange for future reference, as well as chronicling the continuing BBC bias and agenda on the subject. I don't think examples of this kind are going to go away any time soon, if anything, it will only get worse, and the left wing continued attempt to stifle proper debate will probably cause a violent reaction out of frustration.

History shows it time and time again.

[Teddy Bear]

Read it, and weep. ( I suggest right clicking on each page and select 'view image', then enlarge it to read the text of the letter from the Home Office - particularly the quote they use of Spencer's to justify banning him)

I will also include the response by Robert which includes the quote below.

Britain capitulates to jihad

In a striking blow against freedom, the British government has banned us from entering the country. Muhammad al-Arifi, who has advocated Jew-hatred, wife-beating, and jihad violence, entered the U.K. recently with no difficulty. In not allowing us into the country solely because of our true and accurate statements about Islam, the British government is behaving like a de facto Islamic state. The nation that gave the world the Magna Carta is dead.

[Teddy Bear]

Robert Spencer: Britain Embraces Jihad Terror

In FrontPage this morning I show that it is perfectly acceptable to speak about jihad violence in the UK, as long as you're for it. If you oppose it, watch out.

Sign the petition asking that we be allowed into the country here.

Wednesday morning I received an official letter from the British Home Office, notifying me that I would not be allowed to enter the country on the grounds that “your presence here is not conducive to the public good.” My colleague Pamela Geller received a similar letter. We had planned to lay a wreath at a memorial to British soldier Lee Rigby, who was beheaded by Islamic jihadists on a Woolwich street on May 22. But it is not conducive to the public good in Britain to oppose jihad violence and Islamic supremacism.

For that is why the ban came down. The Home Office’s letter to me said:

You are reported to have stated the following:

[Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society because media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.

I said no such thing, of course. I generally speak and write in coherent English. But the point is clear enough. I certainly have pointed out that Islam mandates warfare against unbelievers. This is not really a controversial point to anyone who has studied Islam at all. One man who has done so has said that “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

What venomous Islamophobe said that? Omar Ahmad, cofounder of the “civil rights” organization known as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Another notorious hatemonger explained that “the Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state.” That Islamophobe was Majid Khadduri, an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown.

Yet another anti-Muslim bigot was Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.

A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law endorsed by the most prestigious institution in Sunni Islam, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, says that the leader of the Muslims “makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax,” and cites Qur’an 9:29 in support of this idea: “Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled.” (‘Umdat al-Salik o9.8)

Oh, the Islamophobia! How did it penetrate even to the hallowed halls of al-Azhar? How did all these Islamic scholars get the hateful idea that Islam teaches warfare and subjugation, which the British Home Secretary knows is an idea not conducive to the public good?

Ultimately, it’s unclear how all these (and many other) venerable authorities on Islam came to misunderstand it in such an Islamophobic way, but in any case, it is a good thing Home Secretary Theresa May is keeping all this Islamophobia and hatred out of Britain. Britons will not be subjected to hateful misrepresentations of Islam like this spectacularly noxious bit of Islamophobia:

Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.

You may be wondering if it was I or Pamela Geller who penned that hate-filled misrepresentation of the beautiful Islamic doctrine of jihad. But in fact, it was neither one of us. It was Mohammed al-Arefe, a Saudi Muslim cleric who believes that shedding Infidel blood and smashing Infidel skulls is pleasing to his god.

Apparently believing that such violence is an Islamic imperative is just fine with the British Home Office as long as one does so approvingly: Mohammed al-Arefe was just last week admitted into Britain without any difficulty. If one believes that such violence is an Islamic imperative but opposes it, however, watch out: that is not conducive to the public good.

Thus Britain has not actually banned the truth about Islam. You can get into Britain if you believe that Islam mandates warfare against unbelievers. You just have to think warfare against unbelievers is a fine thing to pursue.

And thus the foremost lesson arising from the banning of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer is this: the unbelievers in Britain don’t stand a chance.

[Teddy Bear]

There's a certain irony in the BBC webpage of the article about Robert and Pamela being banned. I've put red arrows next to it

[Teddy Bear]

Melanie Phillips offers her view on the UK decision

The British government's jihad against free thought

By banning from the country as extremists the American anti-jihadis Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, the Home Secretary Teresa May has not only made herself look ridiculous but has sent the enemies of the United Kingdom the message that they have it on the run.

I do not support the approach taken by either Geller or Spencer to the problem of Islamic extremism. Both have endorsed groups such as the EDL and others which at best do not deal with the thuggish elements in their ranks and at worst are truly racist or xenophobic.

The result has been a serious blow to the credibility of these two writers, with particular damage being done to Spencer whose scholarship in itself is scrupulous. It has also split the defence against Islamic extremism, and handed a potent propaganda weapon to those who seek falsely to portray as bigoted extremists all who are engaged in the defence of the west against the Islamic jihad.

Nevertheless, the decision to ban this duo from Britain is unjustified, oppressive and comes perilously close to lining up the British government alongside those who wish to silence defenders of the west against the jihad, making a total mockery of Britain’s understanding of just who presents a danger to the state.

Neither Geller nor Spencer remotely presents such a danger. They intended to come to Britain to join an EDL rally in Woolwich, in the wake of the barbaric murder there of Drummer Lee Rigby by two Islamists last month.

Personally, I believe the EDL is not a respectable platform to join. Whether or not its rally is itself a threat to public order is, however, another issue. As far as is known, it is not being banned. It is only Geller and Spencer who have been banned from the country on the grounds that their presence is ‘not conducive to the public good’. The implication is that they will incite violence or disorder. But all the two of them do is criticise Islam, condemn jihadis and warn against the west’s failure to take seriously their machinations.

One may think they go too far, that some of their views are unpleasant or offensive or wrong; but that is surely no reason to ban them from the country. What on earth have we come to, after all, when the British Home Secretary is banning people on the basis that they criticise Islam and warn against jihadi violence? Is this not exactly the menacing argument mounted by Islamic extremists, that any condemnation of Islamic extremism is to be banned as ‘Islamophobic’?

Moreover, from the text of the Home Secretary’s letter to Spencer, it would appear that the reason for the ban is that the British government is now telling people that certain interpretations of Islam are to be proscribed even if they may be true – a truly terrifying and totalitarian development, and an open assault upon freedom of thought and expression, not to mention religious scholarship.

And if the argument is that any criticism of Islam may incite violence against Muslims, then by the same token Mrs May should ban all criticism of Israel -- on the much firmer grounds that there is a clearly demonstrated correlation between hate campaigns against Israel and attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions. Of course, that would be unthinkable. So why the double standard?

And that is what is particularly intolerable here -- that Mrs May is allowing people to run around Britain who really are stirring up hatred and worse, but who appear to be untouchable because they are Islamists. The Commentator has drawn attention to the recent entry to Britain of Muhammad Al-Arifi, a Saudi scholar who has declared that Shia Muslims are ‘evil’ and also stated that ‘...al-Qaeda leader Sheikh Oussama Bin Laden, may his soul rest in peace, did not adopt many of the thoughts that are attributed to him today’.

The government also allowed into the country Shady Al-Suleiman, the Australian cleric who has called ‘for Allah to destroy the enemies of Islam’, who has endorsed Hamas which Britain recognises as a terrorist entity, and even endorsed the killing of British soldiers, saying, ‘Give victory to all the Mujahideen all over the world. Oh Allah, prepare us for the jihad’.

Aren’t these men, who foment sectarian division and endorse terrorism, not ‘conducive to the public good’?

So why did Mrs May ban Spencer and Geller? Was it because of the petition to do so by Hope not Hate -- which misrepresented and smeared them by claiming they called all Muslims savages (they did not)? Was it in response to one of the signatories to this petition, Tony Lloyd, Greater Manchester’s Police and Crime Commissioner (who Spencer and Geller say also misrepresented what they have said) who termed them

‘hate preachers – every bit as bad as those who use the name of Islam to propagate hatred’?

What an extraordinary thing to say. Geller and Spencer don’t go round calling for people to be killed, or preaching genocide or holy war, or spreading conspiracy theories and lies to foment hysteria and hatred. But when he was chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Tony Lloyd led a delegation to Gaza to meet leaders of Hamas, where he was photographed fraternally shaking the hand of the Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.

So Lloyd is happy to meet with a group whose leader has called Israel a ‘cancerous tumour that must be removed’ and whose officials have said

‘the Jews are the most despicable and contemptible nation to crawl upon the face of the earth, because they have displayed hostility to Allah…Allah will kill the Jews in the hell of the world to come, just like they killed the believers in the hell of this world’

and

‘...the Jewish faith does not wish for peace nor stability, since it is a faith that is based on murder: “I kill, therefore I am”... Israel is based only on blood and murder in order to exist, and it will disappear, with Allah's will, through blood and shahids [martyrs]’

– and yet he called for Spencer and Geller to be banned as ‘hate preachers’, a demand which the Home Secretary agrees was justified even as she allows real hate preachers to spread their poison around Britain.

Has Britain now totally lost the plot?

[steevo]

I'm not unfamiliar with the EDL and some of their negative perceptions to whatever extent they are actually true. I am disappointed somewhat in Spencer, I think he could have been wiser with this one and I agree with Melanie. I'm just saying... he has to know the obvious or potential traps while being uncompromising.

He was last invited to attend CPAC our annual conservative conference (the establishment right) attended by political activists and elected officials across the states, about 6 years ago. They just don't want him anymore. Earlier this March he was invited to another conservative conference to speak which happened to be on the last day of CPAC's and there was standing room only, which only goes to show there's a great hunger for his insight amongst those not afraid to be called bigots by the Left.

"It was, frankly, kind of overwhelming," Spencer said about the response he received after the panel. "There is a real hunger among conservatives for discussion of these issues. They are disgusted by the lack of an opposition [to fanatical Islam]."

[Teddy Bear]

Actually I disagree with Melanie about the EDL, at least from the understanding I have.
Bear in mind these are (lower) working class people who have been most affected by the excess immigration, as well as the Islamist groups that populate their towns. It's understandable that when a voice like this is denied open expression, as theirs has been, it will create further frustration that will manifest some other way.

I think whenever I've heard EDL leader, Tommy Robinson, speak, he's made a lot of sense and does a very good job considering the opposition he faces most of the time from those interviewing him.

[Teddy Bear]

I've just read this from Pamela Geller, and it seems to concur with my own opinion as well as offer more insights.
Worth a read.

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE ......

With friends like Melanie Phillips, who needs enemies? Articulate and useless.

[steevo]

She certainly makes for a compelling rebuke. I'm glad I read her and the entire response, thanks for posting.

This kind of circular firing squad is the fatal weakness of the right. They accept and adopt the smears that our adversaries manufacture to destroy the most effective activists.

What more can be said? The Right have been their own worst enemy. If I honestly reflect I've also been 'tainted'. I had stereotyped those from our south or 'rednecks' for a long time. Like Spencer said, Philips hears and reads this stuff over and over and against those with a less than cultured disposition it's enough to draw negative conclusion without reason filtering through the propaganda. But like he also said, she should know better.

[Teddy Bear]

I must admit, I was a little surprised at the opinions she (Melanie) stated, particularly as most of the time she is on a par with Spencer and Geller regarding Islam and the menace within that needs to be addressed. I also thought she had a better grasp of reality regarding EDL too than she expressed. Seems like she threw out the baby with the bath water.