Two pairs of tweets about the NYC murders

November 1, 2017 • 10:45 am

The odor of apologetics is strong today. . .

My friend Dr. Orli Peter, a psychologist, analyzed Sarsour’s tweet in a FB post:

Notice how Sarsour invents the “criminalization” of Allahu Akbar so she can foment outrage and divisiveness. This is a common tactic among narcissists — to fan unrest, enflame the crowd with outrage, and take advantage of the ensuing divisions. Watch narcissistic community leaders and religious leaders do the same thing.


. . . and the ever-reliable apologist Nathan Lean, the director of research for the Pluralism, Diversity and Islamophobia project at Georgetown University’s for Muslim-Christian Understanding.


h/t: Orli

57 thoughts on “Two pairs of tweets about the NYC murders

  1. No one was trying to criminalize Islam. There was a question, immediately after the truck driver was captured,as to whether this was an ideologically driven terrorist act or something else – drunk driving or a lunatic responding to voices. The fact that after leaving his truck the driver had yelled Allahu Akbar was cited as evidence that he was a terrorist and not a drunk.

    Sarsour knows this.

      1. Yeah cyclists weren’t the target. Most of those killed and wounded were pedestrians, including five men from Argentina in NYC together on a high school reunion trip. How very sad.

  2. Am I the only one who notices the deep hypocrisy here?

    A man is alleged to have sexually harassed women in the workplace?

    All men are evil sexual harassers because they are men, i.e. we have an extrapolation from the individual to the group based on their shared defining characteristic

    A Muslim commits an act of mass murder (while screaming phrases that leave no doubt what the motivation is)?

    Nah, you can’t extrapolate from the individual to the group based on their shared defining characteristic.

    1. You should know that in postmodernlandia masculinity is toxic, and a medieval doctrine about holy war characterizes its followers as oppressed.

      1. Masculinity is toxic and males are inherently violent but also there’s no biological difference between men and women but women aren’t any of the bad things men are, even transwomen.

        1. “Men and women are exactly the same except men are scum.” That was my ex-wife’s summary of radical feminism.

      2. Except, of course, Islamic {the Medieval doctrine} masculinity which cannot possibly be toxic because of ‘oppressed’.

    2. Who claims all men are evil sexual harassers? Not one woman I know thinks that. Those of us that think there is a problem do not think the problem is that all men are evil sexual harassers. We think the problem is that the mistreatment of women is often tolerated in various ways, ie, not holding the men who do it accountable, or putting the burden of avoiding harassment on the victim: “just don’t let it bother you”, “just take a self-defence class”, etc.

              1. Yes, GM, except…I’m not sure what your first language is, but in English, when one says: “Not one woman I know…,” there is a strong implication, and it is generally understood, at least by native speakers, that one is speaking of a woman that one actually KNOWS, as in, has conversations with.

                If the statement had been: “Not one woman I know OF…,” expanding the universe of women to ones that one has heard about on the news, etc., then your point might be well taken.

              2. No. You claimed that thinking all men are evil harassers is the norm. I’ve come into contact with no one who thinks all men are evil harassers. A handful of women you can point to does not a norm make. You are extrapolating in exactly the way you criticized above.

    3. You’re doing just what Sarsour is doing.

      “You. Are. Not. The. Victim. Here.”

      “Notice how Sarsour invents the “criminalization” of Allahu Akbar so she can foment outrage and divisiveness. This is a common tactic among narcissists.”

      Note how GM, as always, turns every topic into an opportunity to push his tired MRA misogynistic bullshit.

  3. I always have top point this out. It does not mean allah is great. It means allah is *greater*. There’s a big difference.

    1. It is often translated at “greatest”. Curiously (unless I’m mistaken….a distressingly frequent thing these days) the phrase doesn’t appear in the Koran.

      1. What’s the difference whether it is “great”, “greater”, or “greatest” in this context? Does it refer to man, other religions, or what?

        Also, the origin of the phrase is not really so important as what it means now to those that say it.

        1. You’re right that the context is critical. It is said under all sorts of situations, not just slaughter of infidels. When my friend Taufiq’s wife birthed a baby boy the entire street was dancing and shouting “Allahu Akbar”. No infidels were slaughtered (including this one, who joined in the dancing). When Taufiq’s brother welcomed a baby daughter the very next day the neighbors weren’t so joyful, however. Girls are not as “Allahu Akbar” worthy as boys, I guess.

          Of course, “greater” or “greatest” in the context of a battle cry means greater than YOUR god or the greatest of ANY god.

          1. “Girls are not as “Allahu Akbar” worthy as boys…”. No f’n kidding.

            Linda S. cuts off her own nose to spite her face, continuously.

        2. I can say my team is great, and you can agree. If I say my team is better than yours, it’s not quite the same thing. Especially if I demand you acknowledge that mine is greater. Allahu Akhbar means “Allah is greater than whatever you have or believe or value” and the demand is that you acknowledge this.

          It’s part of the monotheist ethic, the exclusionary aspect. Polytheists have generally been accepting of the gods of others. I think Zeus and Hera are great. You come along and say (the Egyptian god) Isis is great. I say cool.
          You don’t demand I abandon Zeus or agree he isn’t fit to lick Isis’s spittle. We can get along, each with our great gods. Not so when monotheist Max comes along.

  4. Sarsour is also a “useless rectum” (a most appropriate term) but it is too late for her nonsense. “Allahu Akbar” is a phrase already firmly entrenched in the non-muslim mind along with “Seig Heil” and “Banzai”.

    She does have something of a point – that the phrase should not have that place in our lexicon. But it’s too late, IMO. Too many victims of nail bombs and Trucks of Peace to erase the connection now.

  5. Christoph (replying to Nathan Lean) could have spared us the unfortunate synecdoche, but the point he is making is important. We are at war with IS, not KFC. Many people, even among those of us who see the seriousness of the threat of the armed movement of Islamist extremism, still have not come to understand the full implication of this fact. This is not about t-r-u-m-p or democrats or republicans. It’s about something more fundamental. The democracies of the world will sooner or later take full stock of this fundamental, and then we will start to turn the corner on the struggle against fundamentalism.

  6. Why do people make this so complicated? “Allahu Akbar”, like most phrases, signifies different things depending on context. If someone says it just after murdering a bunch of people, they are stating their motivation for the deed and thereby labeling themselves as a Muslim terrorist. On the other hand, not all Muslims or people who say “Allahu Akbar” are terrorists.

    We need to just place this statement, or something like it, in a prominent place. When someone says something which denies these facts, we can use it to remind them.

  7. “Every Muslim says Allahu Akbar during prayers”. Linda, we’re not talking prayers here, but murder. Does every Muslim say Allahu Akbar when perpetrating murder?
    Note, Islam is far from criminalised in the West (contrary to much of secularism/atheism in the Islamic world), but maybe some of it’s tenets should be? (I’m thinking of eg. the call to kill apostates)

  8. You. Are. Not. The. Victim. Here.

    A hashtag that will also be really useful as Trump responds to the progress of the investigations into *his* sideshow.

  9. I will also throw in on this subject what an ass Trump managed to make of himself already on this terrorist attack. He is getting hammered for it today but proves again what a demented mental case he is. Just making politics and stupid comments and no concern at all for the dead and wounded. Really classy stuff.

    1. It’s also rich how he puts forth a solution to stop these terrorist attacks – by stopping the “Diversity Lottery” program that George H.W. Bush enacted. It’s a stupid solution, but at least he offers some type of solution. (Of course reinforcing his anti-immigrant narrative while he’s at it.)

      But after 58 people were murdered and another 489 shot and wounded in Las Vegas, there was no talk of a solution to stop that type of terrorist attack…just crickets. I’m sure bump-stock manufacturing can’t keep up with demand. In trump-america, it helps to be a white man using guns.

      1. And, he blamed the lottery system on Chuck Schumer who actually was working on an immigration bill at one time to remove it. Also believe it was G. Bush the first who signed the thing into law in 1990. It is always a good idea to shoot out more lies when the walls are coming in on you.

        1. Yeah, that Schumer lie…just add it to the ever growing pile of shit that Trump spews. And I’d bet good money Fox won’t correct him on any of this; the propaganda of hate and division must not be impeded.

          I knew it was the first Bush…dunno why I added the W. Probably because I miss him…how insane is that?

      2. Vegas, bad as it was, was not a terrorist attack. The definition of terrorism is having an ideological motivation.

        Vegas was not terrorism and there is no hypocrisy in calling Islamic terrorism what it is and ordinary mass shootings what they are. Don’t propagate that dishonest, far leftist, Greenwaldian obscurantist talking point.

  10. Speaking of pairs, ya gotta hand it to Nawaz, he’s got big brass ones. (And I mean that in the least sexist way possible; I know plenty of women who clang when they walk, too.)

  11. The suspect himself has said he planned the truck attack for 2 months and that he did it for ISIS and “Authorities recovered 90 graphic and violent IS propaganda videos from his phones”. The BBC is running the line that he was radicalised in the US by discrimination against his religion there. He comes from an ex Soviet country where Islam actually IS repressed and where Pew results show most people’s Islam is relatively moderate but claims oppression of his religion in the US. The main line of ISIS, as opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood however, is that Islam must be imposed world wide by force.

    By contrast to violent jihadism Linda Sarsour is typical Muslim Brotherhood and that is the agenda she pushes in the US – namely preaching (dawah). Maajid Nawaz and also the Secular Jihadist series (by Ex Muslims who are opposed to the alt right) points out that the Muslim Brotherhood agenda is to bring sharia law back to Muslim lands but also encourage it into the West and the way they do this is through using the assertion that they are oppressed by Western imperialism, to demand concessions to Islam.

    Edward Said, Sayed Qubt, and our friend Tariq Ramadan are famous exponents of the western imperialism line, and the latter two of dawa in the west. Tariq Ramadan is now in trouble having been accused of rape by an Ex Muslima and now others as well. The Muslim Brotherhood is prepared to be violent occasionally in Muslim countries and in Israel but it has no strategy of violence in the west. These days they add to their repertoire angrily crying oppression after every attack as per the Muslim student representative from Manchester University for days after the attack in that city – with the BBC falling over itself to give him coverage. I don’t deny that there are those who are Muslimphobic and harass women in hijabs but that is no excuse for government and liberal media pushing the Islam-is-peace line or the Islam-is-not-political line. Silence from the liberal media about Rotherham and now a string of sex rings in other English towns about the religion of the perpetrators and implications re integration. The BBC applauds the work of George Galloway in supposedly working to get the Biraderi clans in the UK to allow more women, and not just highly traditionalist women, to win nomination to run political office as elected representatives in the Labour party. Actually according to numerous liberal female muslims and some labour Muslim politicians, he is reinforcing their patriarchal norm.

    And as for our need to be so accommodating of Islamic sharia and Islamic norms – in the video below from South Carolina the cleric there literally asserts that in Islam not only are women inherently inferior but the wife must accept she is her husbands prisoner to have any hope of avoiding eternal hellfire. Western liberalism and norms about gender equality are to be resisted at all costs
    in transcript form (made a bit clearer)

  12. Allahu Akbar (Arabic: الله أكبر) is an Islamic phrase, called Takbir in Arabic, meaning “Allah is Greater” or “Allah is [the] greatest”. Allahu Akbar or Allahu Ekber and similar variants may also refer to: Allahu Akbar (anthem), the national anthem of Libya from 1969 to 2011.
    Allahu Akbar (disambiguation) – Wikipedia

    There is a difference between God is Great and God is Greater (than your God? Than your right to a violence-free life? etc… )

Leave a Reply