Video: University at Buffalo Left-fascists scream abuse at Robert Spencer, officials do nothing

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/05/video-university-at-buffalo-left-fascists-scream-abuse-at-robert-spencer-officials-do-nothing; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Damage control: After Robert Spencer speech, University at Buffalo hosts TWO lying Muslim spokesmen

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/05/damage-control-after-robert-spencer-speech-u-at-buffalo-hosts-two-lying-muslim-spokesmen; 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

This is extraordinary. Since Left-fascists screamed at me for an hour
and a half, I barely got a word in at the University at Buffalo, but
university officials and the local Muslim Brotherhood MSA chapter are
apparently so shaken nonetheless by my appearance that they have
featured not one, but two events featuring lying Islamic spokesmen to
make sure that campus Left-lemmings stay on message and remember that
Islam is a religion of peace that has nothing to do with terrorism,
despite the ever-growing amount of evidence to the contrary.

Ahmadi spokesman Qasim Rashid is a professional liar, or as Pamela Geller calls him, “a one-man cottage industry of deception and hypocrisy.” He has whitewashed Muhammad’s support for torture and the reality of jihad violence and Sharia oppression; dissembled about the Qur’an’s sanction of deception of unbelievers; lied about the presence of violent passages in the Qur’an; lied about the Qur’an’s sanction of beating disobedient women; lied about the nature of Sharia; called for limitations on the freedom of speech and expression to outlaw behavior and speech some Muslims may find offensive; and lied about Muhammad’s stance toward the persecution of Christians.
When challenged about the “facts” he has presented, he (like virtually
all other Islamic supremacists) responds with furious ad hominem
contempt, but never answers the refutations of his articles on
substantive grounds — because, of course, he cannot do so.

“Maham Alamgir, a sophomore biochemistry major at Niagara University,
felt Rashid’s speech highlighted the importance of diversity. ‘It shows
that people are different and it’s possible to live in harmony with
each other and have differing opinions,’ Alamgir said.”

That’s rich, coming from a student at the University at Buffalo,
which is just as much of a hard-Left indoctrination center that
demonizes and forbids opposing viewpoints as most other universities
today. “It shows that people are different and it’s possible to live in
harmony with each other and have differing opinions”? Sure, as long as
Left-fascists and Islamic supremacists are screaming abuse and shouting down anyone who dares to dissent.

The university also hosted Hassan Shibly of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements about how Islamic law should be imposed in the U.S. (Ahmad denies this, but the original reporter stands by her story.) A California chapter distributed a poster telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI, and a Florida chapter distributed pamphlets with the same message. CAIR has opposed virtually every anti-terror measure that has been proposed or implemented and has been declared a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates. A CAIR operative recently called for the overthrow of the U.S. government.

Much more below.

“UB’s MSA presents ‘Exposing Radical Islamophobes’ panel,” by Maddy Fowler, The Spectrum (University at Buffalo), May 4, 2017:

Hassan Shibly believes people are more likely to get struck by lightning than be killed by a terrorist who calls himself Muslim.

Shibly, a civil rights lawyer, UB alumnus and
director of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR), was one of two panelists for an event entitled
“Exposing Radical Islamophobes: Breaking Down the Misinformation of
Robert Spencer.” The event was hosted by the Muslim Student Association
(MSA) and also featured Dr. Katharina Azim, a professor in UB’s
psychology department. Roughly 200 people attended the event, which took
place in Norton 112 on Wednesday evening.

Azim and Shibly discussed misconceptions about Islam and addressed points made by Robert Spencer in his Monday speech at UB.

Probably not. I was able to make very few points, and none as fully as I would have if the Left-fascists hadn’t been screaming.

Shibly thinks Islamophobia is manufactured by “hate
profiteers” and believes it undermines liberty, freedom of speech and
safety.

Shibly and all other Islamic supremacist liars know full well that if
there really is any suspicion or dislike of Islam or Muslims, it stems
from jihad terror, not from “Islamophobes.” What he is trying to do is
stigmatize all criticism of Islam and jihad, so that people will be
afraid to speak out against jihad and it can advance unimpeded.

A hate profiteer is someone who makes money off of
hateful rhetoric based on double standards and information taken out of
context, Shibly said. He feels Robert Spencer is a hate profiteer.

The man who works for a Hamas front calls someone who exposes him a “hate profiteer.”

These individuals promote the same lies about Muslims that were made about Jews in Germany 70 years ago, Shibly explained.

“If you compare Nazi quotes about Jews and Spencer’s quotes about
Muslims, it is almost verbatim. It’s the same hate with a different
target,” Shibly said.

This is a vicious slander, and Shibly’s comparison is an insult to
the memory of the Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust. It’s also a
common Leftist talking point. Many, many others have made this claim
before Shibly, including Noam Chomsky; Bernie Sanders; the notorious non-Muslim Islamic apologist Karen Armstrong; Jeffrey Goldberg, the journalist at The Atlantic who some time ago interviewed Barack Obama about why he won’t call Islamic terrorism Islamic; liberal media pundit Reza Aslan; Muslim Brotherhood-linked Congressman Keith Ellison; Nicholas Kristof, one of the New York Times’ Mideast pontificators; Canadian Muslim leader Syed Sohawardy; and Philadelphia chapter leader of Hamas-linked CAIR, Jacob Bender. Many others have repeated it. The blazingly brilliant Daniel Greenfield takes it apart in this video.

The idea that Muslims are the new Jews is put forward by the Left,
but it also has opponents on the Left. In 2014, as part of his ongoing
awakening to the nature and reality of the jihad threat, Bill Maher noted:
“Jews weren’t oppressing anybody. There weren’t 5,000 militant Jewish
groups. They didn’t do a study of treatment of women around the world
and find that Jews were at the bottom of it. There weren’t 10 Jewish
countries in the world that were putting gay people to death just for
being gay.” The late Christopher Hitchens
also refuted this idea when writing a few years ago about the notorious
Ground Zero Mosque proposal: “’Some of what people are saying in this
mosque controversy is very similar to what German media was saying about
Jews in the 1920s and 1930s,’ Imam Abdullah Antepli, Muslim chaplain at
Duke University, told the New York Times. Yes, we all recall
the Jewish suicide bombers of that period, as we recall the Jewish yells
for holy war, the Jewish demands for the veiling of women and the
stoning of homosexuals, and the Jewish burning of newspapers that
published cartoons they did not like.”

Indeed. Further, no one is calling for or justifying genocide of
Muslims. No individual or group opposed to Islam is remotely comparable
to the National Socialists. Not that facts have ever gotten in the way
of a good meme.

He feels people like Spencer are a threat to democracy and liberty.

“When I hear Spencer say that Islam should be illegal, I hear him
saying my religion should be outlawed… and what I hear him saying is
that he will chip away at the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution,” Shibly said.

Shibly is a straight-up liar. I have never said that Islam should be illegal.

…He also feels it is a violation of First Amendment
rights when government officials and police officers question Muslims
about their faith. He feels such questioning undermines Americans’
safety because officials become so focused on profiling Muslims they
miss out on actual criminals.

There’s his game. He wants there to be no law enforcement scrutiny of Muslims. Then the jihad can advance without opposition.

Shibly described a time his family was selected for random questioning at the U.S./Canadian border.

“Random means they saw your headscarf,” Shibly said he remarked to
his mother as they were pulled aside into a room of 40 or so people –
all of whom were Muslim.

“I swore I was in a mosque,” Shibly said. The group was held “like
criminals” for six hours. During that time, a white American man got
through the border with no issue, and ended up killing people in
Canada.”…

Cry me a river. I was detained for three hours at the Toronto
airport, doubtless in part because of the libels and smears of people
such as Hassan Shibly. If you had any genuine concern for the safety of
Americans, Mr. Shibly, you would put up with these examinations, to
which all Americans can be subject.

…Between 1980 and 2005, 7 percent of terrorism was
committed by people who claimed to be Jewish, 6 percent was done by
people who call themselves Muslim, and “double digits” terror acts were
committed by people calling themselves Christian, Shibly said.

It is so easy to lie with statistics. I believe that Shibly is here
referring to a spurious study that valued all terror attacks equally:
9/11 was one, and PETA throwing red paint on a woman wearing fur was
one. So it wildly overvalued so-called terror attacks by non-Muslims.

Shibly also clarified the definition of Sharia Law, which
he said means “path to water.” It is not a specific, monolithic code
and is open to debate and interpretation. Sharia aims to protect
religion, life, intellect, honor and property, just as the Constitution
does, he said. It forbids forcing religious practices and beliefs on
non-Muslims.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Saudi Arabia, Iran, and
Sudan are Sharia states. Pakistan is close to being a full Sharia state,
as is Afghanistan. How are women’s rights in those countries? Gay
rights? How are non-Muslims treated? That’s Sharia.

Shibly continued to slander me:

…“Even though I dramatically disagree with inviting
Spencer, I think he has a right to speak. I just don’t think he deserves
a platform like the University at Buffalo,” Shibly said.

He feels inviting Spencer to UB is no different than inviting a Nazi.

“Just as I wouldn’t invite a Nazi or a member of the KKK, I certainly wouldn’t invite Spencer,” Shibly said.

Likening analysts of the motives and goals of jihad terror to the
Nazis and KKK is clearly an attempt to stigmatize such analysis, such
that everyone will be afraid to notice the Islamic identity and motives
of jihadis.

He feels the line between free speech and hate speech is inciting violence.

“Hateful rhetoric is not cost free and has led to a dramatic increase in hate crimes,” Shibly said.

In reality, there has been a dramatic increase in fake anti-Muslim hate crimes.

However, he said he was disappointed that Spencer’s
speech was disrupted. He feels it would have been more productive to
have a discussion.

He said this because he knows that their display made the screaming Left-fascists and Islamic supremacists look bad.

“We should not be afraid to let people speak but also
challenge them and be driven not by arrogance and a desire to win
debates but a desire to unite our community,” Shibly said….

That’s funny. Hamas-linked CAIR officials refuse to debate me or
appear on shows with me. He is spouting falsehoods to fool the
Left-lemmings at the University at Buffalo.

Samar Adhami, a graduate student in biology, felt the event was “very necessary” after Spencer’s event.

“A lot of people are not informed because they are so overcome by
fear. [The speakers] helped clear up negative connotations,” she said.

Overcome by fear. Sure you are, Samar. Sure.

“Qasim Rashid holds ‘True Islam: A Response to Islamophobes and
Terrorists Everywhere’ discussion at UB,” by Maddy Fowler and Daniel
Petruccelli, The Spectrum (University at Buffalo), May 4, 2017:

Qasim Rashid, a civil rights attorney, former Harvard
University Fellow of Islamic Studies and Amazon bestselling author,
spoke at UB Tuesday evening about the misconceptions of Islam.

Qasim Rashid believes there’s a philosophy in media that “if it bleeds, it leads.”

He thinks because Robert Spencer’s speech on Monday was more
sensationalized, it garnered more attention. Rashid’s event, by
contrast, was smaller, quieter and more peaceful. Approximately 125
people attended the event and 20 people left after Rashid’s lecture.

Maybe mine garnered more attention because of all the screaming
Left-fascists who made it impossible for me to speak. Because Rashid was
telling them what they wanted to hear, they let him speak.

“Unfortunately, that has dominated our media lives –
what’s going to get more clicks, what’s going to get more views,” Rashid
said. “I think that’s why people left. If I spoke up there about how
Sharia law is coming and Muslims are taking over, I guarantee you we
would have had more.”

Not enough people showed up to hear your lies, Qasim? How
disappointing! Nice that the university paper gave you a chance to
explain away your failure.

…He is not interested in “falsehoods and propaganda,” but rather what he calls the proven model of true Islam.

All Rashid does is retail falsehoods and propaganda.

…Rashid spoke about the importance of women in the
founding of Islam. He said women are equal to men, citing a part of
Sharia that states all the money a man makes belongs to his wife and she
gets to keep all of the money she makes.

A few things left out of this whitewashed presentation: “Men have
authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the
other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women
are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded
them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and
send them to beds apart and beat them.” — Qur’an 4:34

Nowhere does the Qur’an teach that a woman can beat a man under any circumstances.

The Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as
he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth as you
will” (2:223).

It declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man:
“Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men,
then a man and two women, such as you choose, for witnesses, so that if
one of them errs, the other can remind her” (2:282).

It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave
girls also: “If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with
the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if
you fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly, then only one, or one
that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent
you from doing injustice” (4:3).

It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of
a daughter: “Allah directs you as regards your children’s inheritance:
to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (4:11).

It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that
Islamic divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet
menstruated” (65:4).

Islamic law stipulates that a man’s prayer is annulled if a dog or a
woman passes in front of him as he is praying. “Narrated ‘Aisha: The
things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said,
“Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in
front of the praying people).” I said, ‘You have made us (i.e. women)
dogs.’ I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between
him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip
away. for I disliked to face him.” (Sahih Bukhari 1.9.490)

Another hadith depicts Muhammad saying that the majority of the
inhabitants of hell are women: “I looked into Paradise and I saw that
the majority of its people were the poor. And I looked into Hell and I
saw that the majority of its people are women.” Sahih Bukhari 3241;
Sahih Muslim 2737)

When asked about this, he explained: “I was shown Hell and I have
never seen anything more terrifying than it. And I saw that the majority
of its people are women.” They said, “Why, O Messenger of Allah?” He
said, “Because of their ingratitude (kufr).” It was said, “Are they
ungrateful to Allah?” He said, “They are ungrateful to their companions
(husbands) and ungrateful for good treatment. If you are kind to one of
them for a lifetime then she sees one (undesirable) thing in you, she
will say, ‘I have never had anything good from you.’” (Sahih Bukhari
1052)

And in another hadith: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings
of Allah be upon him) went out to the musalla (prayer place) on the day
of Eid al-Adha or Eid al-Fitr. He passed by the women and said, ‘O
women! Give charity, for I have seen that you form the majority of the
people of Hell.’ They asked, ‘Why is that, O Messenger of Allah?’ He
replied, ‘You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I
have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religious
commitment than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some
of you.’ The women asked, ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is deficient in
our intelligence and religious commitment?’ He said, ‘Is not the
testimony of two women equal to the testimony of one man?’ They said,
‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Is it not
true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?’ The
women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her religious
commitment.’” (Sahih Bukhari 304)

Sharia is the moral code by which Muslims live, according
to Rashid. He said it is no different than canon law for Catholics or
halakha for Jews….

Except for those bits about stoning, amputation, polygamy, child
marriage, death for apostasy, and the rest. Rashid follows with two
straw men:

The belief that those who do not believe in Islam are
killed per Sharia is a falsehood spread by “corrupt clerics” and
“Islamophobes,” according to Rashid.

Actually that is not the claim. The claim is that Islam mandates
warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers (Qur’an 9:29), not that
they should all be killed.

He also addressed misconceptions about Jihad. He said
Jihad has been depicted by Islamophobes as “forceful conversion through
any means necessary,” but it refers to any kind of struggle. Trying to
ace exams, lose weight, or fighting cancer are all forms of engaging in
Jihad, according to Rashid.

Another straw man. Jihad’s primary meaning in Islamic theology is not forced conversion, but warfare to establish Sharia.

“The speaker last night was promoting ISIS ideology on
campus. He was essentially their spokesperson. That’s how dangerous this
rhetoric is,” Rashid said.

These liars can’t stop slandering me. I read from a legal manual
endorsed by al-Azhar, the most prestigious and influential institution
in Sunni Islam. Rashid calls that “ISIS ideology” because he is trying
to mislead his marks into thinking it isn’t as mainstream as it is.

Rashid explained that there are two narratives being
written right now: one says that people are so different from one
another that one person’s success depends on the other’s failure.

The first narrative helps people gain attention, Rashid said.

“The other narrative, the one where we come together – there’s no
money to be made. There’s no fame, there’s no fortune, there’s a lot of
ridicule and a lot of harassment behind it as well,” Rashid said.

Note the irony. I was the one ridiculed and harassed, and this liar slanders me and then claims victimhood status.

…Uma Khan felt Rashid’s talk was more productive than
Spencer’s because she believes educational dialogue is more helpful than
shutting a speaker down.

“Every speaker deserves to say what they have to say, but our
response should be an educational response, education has more power,”
the sophomore finance major said. “It’s great to have protests but it
needs to be a peaceful protest and we have to let the speaker actually
speak in order to respond. We don’t just shut someone down like that
what happened yesterday.”

Khan said the best defense against anti-Islam speakers such as Robert
Spencer is to show the Muslim community’s service, humanity and unity,
not just “shutting someone up.”

“Because now that’s his defense, he used that against us,” Khan said….

Right you are, Uma. I sure did. And I’m going to keep on doing so,
because what happened there exposed the thuggish and authoritarian heart
of contemporary academia.
_______________________________________________________

 

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

At Todd Green’s lecture Sunday, Gettysburg College President Janet
Morgan Riggs said: “My fantasy is that we will have four or five people
sitting in a room with Robert Spencer, and the other 2,500 members with
Jerome at his rally. I think that’s what we can do to counter the fear
that a speaker like this can bring to this community.”

Riggs should be ashamed. If the Muslims at the university really
think I am not telling the truth, they should come and engage me in
discussion during the Q and A, and prove me wrong. They can’t, so
they’re boycotting, and instead of exhorting students to engage
unwelcome and unpopular ideas and deal with them on a rational basis,
the president of the university is encouraging them.

In this letter responding to alumni threats over my appearance,
Riggs uncritically accepts and retails the defamatory and libelous
falsehoods that I am “bigoted” and “hateful,” and somehow endanger
Muslim students.

I hereby challenge President Riggs: prove your statements with
quotations from my own writings, not from smear pieces from the Southern
Poverty Law Center or other far-Left groups that have no intention of
treating their targets fairly. Substantiate your characterizations of my
work from my work, or retract and apologize. Also, I invite you to come
to the lecture tonight, if you don’t end up canceling it, and if I am
not shouted down by the Left-fascist thugs you are enabling and
encouraging, then I challenge you to find any “hatred” or “bigotry” in
anything I say.

I do hope you will take up my challenge, but obviously you will not
do so. For being a president of a college who actively discourages the
consideration of views that dissent from the establishment line, and
actively discouraging critical thinking and free inquiry, you should be
made to resign in disgrace. Instead, you will no doubt be hailed as a
heroine by your Left-fascist peers and colleagues.

“President Janet Morgan Riggs responds to open letter from alums on
Robert Spencer,” by Janet Morgan Riggs, Gettysburg College President The Gettysburgian, May 1, 2017:

Editor’s Note: The following letter is a response
from College president Janet Morgan Riggs to the open letter sent by 375
alums urging President Riggs to not allow Robert Spencer to speak on
Wednesday.

I want to begin by thanking those who signed the petition requesting
that we rescind our invitation to Robert Spencer for caring enough about
Gettysburg College to speak out. To say this is a complex situation
would be an understatement.

Many Gettysburgians have expressed perspectives about whether or not
Robert Spencer should be permitted to speak on our campus. Some think we
should have denied YAF’s request to invite him and that we should have
over‐ruled Student Senate’s thoughtful deliberations which led them to
make the decision to approve this event. I have also heard from many who
believe that allowing Robert Spencer to speak is the right thing to do,
despite the fact that they find his views to be offensive and/or
abhorrent.

I don’t know if our alumni who signed the petition have seen the letter I sent to campus about this, but you can find it here:

www.gettysburg.edu/about/offices/president/inclusion/pdfs/2017/MessagefromthePresident_email+4‐25‐17.pdf

This letter was intended to provide some information to members of
the campus community about the decision‐making process, the challenge of
balancing our values, and the additional speaker that was invited.

We are concerned for the Muslim members of our community and have met
with Muslim students to talk about what we might do to support them. We
have also reached out to Muslim members of our faculty and staff, and
some faculty members have reached out to our Muslim students to offer
their personal support. Discussions are being held in classes, and
students are planning a solidarity rally to be held at the same time
that Spencer will be speaking—not as a protest of the speech, but as a
way of showing their support for the Muslim community.

I appreciate the passion that our alumni have expressed on both sides
of this controversy. It’s quite clear that our alumni are not united in
their viewpoints. In one of the letters I received supporting the
decision to allow Robert Spencer to speak, one of our graduates quoted
American Civil Liberties Union National Legal Director David Cole: “For
the future of our democracy, we must protect bigoted speech from
government censorship. On college campuses, that means that the best way
to combat hateful speech is through counter‐speech, vigorous and
creative protest, and debate, not threats of violence or censorship.”

This is an extraordinarily complicated and challenging situation, one
that is being played out on college campuses across the nation. I can
assure you that we are giving this a tremendous amount of thought and
attention, and I am pleased that our alumni care enough about Gettysburg
College to voice their perspectives.

Sincerely,
Janet Morgan Riggs
President

______________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
 http://gettysburgian.com/2017/05/president-janet-morgan-riggs-responds-to-open-letter-from-alums/
_________________________________________________

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: 

 Thanks again to the police and security personnel who were out in force 
last night as I spoke at Gettysburg College. They ensured that 
Left-fascists would not disrupt the event as they did Monday at the 
University at Buffalo. And now you can see the presentation yourself and
 judge whether saying these things warrants all the outrage with which 
my invitation to speak was greeted.