Did you even read your own article, Jayjay? Just a few paragraphs past what you quoted, he starts rambling about a bunch of stealth jihad bullshit, suggesting that moderate Muslims may just be telling us what we want to hear and can't be trusted:
Objectively good human beings, who identify themselves as Muslim, give Islam a good face, one far better then it deserves. This only gives us a false impression about what it is we’re facing, with just another excuse not to face it. And this leads to our acceptance into our culture of stealth jihadists who have figured out how to say what we want to hear, while they scheme behind the scenes to further Islamize the West.
In other words, he's full of shit. He's acknowledging that there are some Muslims out there who are OK, but then immediately qualifies that by saying they're enablers, and really aren't Muslims anyway. Then he backpedals even further by saying that the "good ones" may also working secretly to destroy Western civilization from the inside and thus can't really be trusted. So, far from being some trump card to shut me up, your link verifies exactly what I've been saying all along: he has a problem with Muslims in general.
EDIT: I missed this bit
Muslims who really care about Islam are part of an organized effort to spread Islam, and I sometimes refer to this collective effort by Muslims as “Organized Islam.” No matter the means involved, Muslims working towards a more Islamic world want the same thing the jihadists want. This organized effort includes Mosques, Muslim organizations, Muslim individuals writing books, blog posts, etc. And they all invariably engage in anti-Western, Anti-Israeli propaganda, at the very least.
What he's saying is, any Muslim engaged in efforts to spread Islam in any way, or really any Muslims involved in any sort of Muslim organizations or activities, are a threat to the West and furthering the interests of the jihadists.
So basically, Jayjay, the content of your own article completely demolishes this "distinction" you're trying to give him credit for. It doesn't exist. It's meaningless bullshit meant to shield him from criticism, that evaporates when you listen to what he actually believes.
I can go dig up articles from Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and countless other rabid Islamophobes who claim that their problem isn't with all Muslims. They all fucking claim that, because they want to sound more credible than they actually are. Racists and anti-Semites do the same thing. Some of them even claim most are OK. But once you listen to their actual rhetoric when they get on the warpath, or how they talk when they're not worried about PR, you get a much clearer view, and this guy isn't any different.
Since you obviously spent time Googling for this, maybe you should have spent some of that time reading his actual blog, or the quotes from it which I posted like two days ago:
"When Muslims aren't butchering us, they're butchering the English language, which is fitting since their prophet was illiterate and the koran is illiterature. I can almost hear Muslims screaming, "We Will Butcher The English Language!" I found this picture of "moderate" Muslims, praising "Hitlor" & calling for another "Hollow Cost" on Facebook."
Yeah, he clearly has no problem with ordinary, moderate Muslims:
And with that, Oxford becomes less Western and more Islamic. While jihadists wage literal war on the civilized world, "Moderate" Muslims pressure Non-Islamic institutions to become more Islamic- incremental step by incremental step- and gutless Westerners are always ready to submit. This must be fought Every Step of the Way. Help me spread this post and its graphic wherever you can.
"While the civilized world commemorates the Holocaust, "the Muslim world" celebrates the Holocaust, denies the Holocaust and threatens a new Holocaust."
Actually, no:
"As to why I give Mohammad a Hitler mustache - Growing up among Muslims, it was not uncommon to hear Hitler being spoken of in glowing terms. No doubt because of the hardcore anti-semitism inherent in both Islam and Nazism, and so within Mohammad and Hitler."
Hell, even the website you pulled this from has other stuff from Fawstin which gives us a much more honest picture of what he thinks.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/thomas-lifson/former-muslim-bosch-fawstin-sounding-the-alarm/
Islam is submission. Islam is death and destruction. Islam is here to control. Islam is here to make life on earth hell.
In this interview, as well as an interview (7 min) last month on a program called The Flipside, Fawstin spoke of how he was raised in a so-called “moderate” Muslim family – a family where Hitler was greatly admired.
Asked whether there is such a thing as moderate Islam, Fawstin said: “No. There is only Islam. Islam is immoderate by nature.”
...
Fawstin talks about how Muslims dread contact with anything related to pigs, noting that if he had an airline he would have all the seats covered with pigskin leather, making it the safest airline flying.
Like I said, he's full of shit, but you're lapping it up like it's honey. And let's review some of his actual artwork again:
View attachment 2919
I'm sure if someone drew a picture of Judaism being beheaded, people here would be making excuses and saying the artist isn't actually a bigot. Right?
View attachment 2926
Look familiar? Does this vaguely resemble another drawing you've seen recently? Now who do you think this is supposed to represent?
Now, by all means, Jayjay, go ahead and explain to me how this one is only directed at the extremists and not average, ordinary folk:
View attachment 2923
No one on this forum would be objecting to me claiming that someone hated all Jews, or all blacks, if they spoke of and drew them in this manner, just because they claimed in an article somewhere that some of them are OK.
With a sword in his hand, shrieking like an ape. Which is how he generally portrays Muslims, meaning it's just as disingenuous to pretend the Muhammad cartoon is saying nothing about Muslims as it would be in the Jew or black examples.
Incorrect. And no one would be arguing with my "interpretation" were we talking about any group other than Muslims.
No. And what you posted doesn't even come remotely close to bearing this out. The very best you can hope to argue is that he merely allows that some Muslims don't fit his bigoted caricature. But that's the same bullshit all Islamophobes fall back on to try to shield themselves from criticism. He thinks moderate Islam doesn't exist, routinely smears moderate Muslims as at the very best enablers of "true" Muslims, who, yes, are in his eyes violent, ape-like Nazis, and who he's portrayed as such.
And to reiterate: no one on this forum would be objecting to me claiming that someone hated all Jews, or all blacks, if they spoke of and drew them in this manner, just because they claimed in an article somewhere that some of them are OK.
So nice try, but my point stands. The guy hates Muslims in general, same as Geller et al, and the same as virulent anti-Semites and racists hate Jews and blacks, even if they begrudgingly acknowledge that "not all of them are bad." And his artwork, including the Muhammad piece, reflect his beliefs about them. Which is why it's pretty fucked up that "liberals" are promoting it and giving him free publicity.
Last edited:
