Southern Poverty Law Center hit piece on me

A year ago this week I was one of several speakers at a terrorism conference hosted by Christian Reporter News, founded by Kat Rowoldt. Security was very tight and access was strictly controlled. And unbeknownst to any, a reporter for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) found his way through the doors.

Despite its name, the SPLC has nothing to do with either poverty or law, like Grape Nuts are neither grapes nor nuts. Rather, they are a self-proclaimed authority for fingering “hate groups” in the USA. Some of these are legitimate, such as the KKK. But for the past several years they have also targeted anyone who speaks out truthfully regarding Islam and its agenda. Among such notables fingered as such by the SPLC are Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, and now apparently me and my friends who spoke at the conference. As the saying goes, truth is the new hate speech.

The unnamed reporter wrote a scathing article about the conference. The first two paragraphs he dedicated to attacking me and what I said. I posted a comment on the SPLC’s comment section for the article, but of course they declined to post my comment. It’s a wonderful example of the hypocrisy of leftist groups such as SPLC who cry for equality and tolerance, but censor free speech they don’t like. Tolerance is allowing someone with whom you may disagree to at least express their view or opinion. SPLC censors comments they don’t like. How tolerant!!

And since the SPLC refused to publish my comment (see the comment section of the article; it’s not there), I will post it below. But first, the article itself.

The reporter wrote:

Joe Carey, president and co-founder of the anti-Muslim Radical Truth Ministry (RTN), spoke twice at the event. RTN calls Islam “the greatest challenge to the church in today’s world” due to the religion “growing at an alarming rate through both evangelistic efforts and biological reproduction.” RTN’s website refers to “the truths of Christianity found in the Bible against the lies of Satan found in the Qur’an, masquerading as truth,” and describes Islam as “the greatest deception ever given to humankind.”

The first noteworthy observation reveals a bit about the intellectual level of the reporter. He identifies the ministry as Radical Truth Ministry but then abbreviates it as “RTN.” RTN?? One might err on the side of grace and give him a break if it was a simple error caused by a one-time slip of the finger, but he repeats the same error multiple times. So it was no typographical error or slip of the keyboard (the M and N are adjacent to each other). It was intentional. One can easily discern this is not going to be a particularly challenging article intellectually.

Next, he immediately brands me and the ministry as “anti-Muslim.” The writer displays his inability to discern the difference between the ideology (Islam) and the people (Muslims). He, like many on the left, show profound ignorance (or lack of intellect) by conflating the two. For those who know me and have heard me speak, I am not “anti-Muslim.” I love Muslims; I have deep appreciation for many of them because they are devoutly religious and hold to their true beliefs. I simply see them as deceived. I often say Muslims are the greatest victims of the lies of Islam. On the other hand, I am anti-Islam. As an ideology, Islam stands in stark opposition to Christianity, and the Qur’an likewise stands in opposition to the Bible. In fact Islam teaches that the Qur’an supersedes the Bible as God’s final word, making the Bible irrelevant.

It is truly sad the reporter had no ability to distinguish the people from the ideology they follow. And as for the remainder of the paragraph, he was correct, though I think he wrote it intending to mock and slander my view. Yes, I believe Islam is the greatest challenge today. Yes, they are growing through evangelism and reproduction. And yes, Islam is the greatest deception given to mankind. Thank you, unknown SPLC reporter, for helping me expose the truth of Islam to your wide audience.

Carey’s remarks at the event echoed the virulently anti-Muslim sentiments found on his group’s website. “Islam is the only religious system of which I am aware that actually gives religious sanction to domestic violence,” he said. He also described ISIS, the extremist group behind numerous atrocities in North Africa and elsewhere, as representing “true Islam.”

Doubling down on his ignorance, the author continues to attack me as “anti-Muslim.” But I’ll leave that aside for the remainder.

Yes, Islam does give religious sanction to domestic violence. Is the reporter aware of any other ideology which does? And has the reporter done the requisite personal research to discount my view as uninformed, as the article seems to be suggesting? The Qur’an clearly tells men they can beat their wives as a last resort after following two prior steps, if her errant behavior persists (Sura 4:34). And this is how the verse is interpreted widely among Muslims. To demonstrate, here is an email I received from a friend who was serving as a missionary in Morocco. Recall that Morocco is considered to be one of the more moderate Islamic nations, not counted among hard core radical Islam. My friend wrote:

In Sura (chapter) 4:34 of the Quran (someone’s take on) God tells men to beat (or scourge) women in whom they fear rebellion. When we were in the north on vacation I was coming home with a friend from a café when I saw a man hitting a woman. I immediately ran to the man and “restrained” him, pushing him about thirty feet away. He told me the woman was his wife (she denied that) as if that made it OK. After a few moments I released him and they went their separate ways. A few weeks later I was in a shop buying some peanuts and we got on the topic of marriage. The shopkeeper asked me if I hit my wife to which I said “No.” Then he asked me again (to make sure he heard me right). When I again answered in the negative he told me that they hit their wives.

And yes, ISIS does represent a true form of Islam. To grasp this concept, one must understand two points: 1) Muhammad is the supreme exemplar of behavior for all Muslims to follow (Sura 33:21), so whatever he did must be repeated by devout Muslims; and 2) Muhammad set the example for everything ISIS does today, although ISIS puts modern twists on their actions. For example, ISIS tortures captives with acid, but acid did not exist in Muhammad’s day. But he still tortured captives, engaged in sex with female captives, demanded jizya of non-Muslims, et cetera, all activities ISIS is doing. But in order to know this, one must be familiar with early biographies of Muhammad. The reporter apparently is not, yet seems justified in critiquing those who are as ‘haters.’

In his second speech, Carey offered his theory as to why some Americans in prison are converting to Islam. “Islam provides religious sanction for some of the very behaviors that landed these people in prison to begin with,” he said. He added, “They convert to Islam because Islam gives them religious sanction for robbery. That’s what Mohammed did.”

Indeed Muhammad sanctioned robbery. That’s exactly what his very first battle was about after migrating to Medina. The Battle of Badr began as a caravan raid where Muhammad and his men robbed a caravan carrying expensive items from Mecca to Syria for trade. Muhammad claimed Allah gave him permission to not only raid the caravan, but to keep the stolen goods. But again, someone ignorant of Muhammad’s life would not know this.

During a Q&A session following Carey’s second speech, someone asked if it is common for wealthy Muslim men to keep male sex slaves. Carey called that dubious claim “one of the deep dark and hidden secrets in Islam. It’s something that’s done that’s not talked about.”

Note this reporter called my claim ‘dubious’ that Muslim men regularly have sex with boys. Since that time, the media has exposed this ‘dubious’ claim as fact in the case of the Green Beret who is facing punishment for stopping the rape of a boy in Afghanistan. He was told he should turn a blind eye to such cultural issues.

The author continued down the same line of ignorance for the remainder of the article. He called pastor Steve Branson, a find man for whom I have great respect, as being anti-LGBT, as if it is unconscionable to be against the militant advancement of the gay agenda in society. He likewise maligns my good friend Lt Col Roy White as also being anti-Muslim, rather than standing against the militant advancement of the Islamic agenda (anti-Islam, not anti-Muslim). Nuance is not this author’s gift.

Finally, I submitted this comment on the article’s page, but it was quickly deleted.

Marvelous. A hit piece against me and my friends by an unnamed author,
apparently afraid to reveal his own identity. And with the requisite ad
hominem arguments thrown in as expected of a ‘progressive’ report.

For the record, I am anti-Islam but not anti-Muslim. It is possible to be
both, but understanding the distinction would take someone with the
ability to discern the nuance between the two.

Further, the unnamed author would do well to actually study Islam – read
the earliest biography of Muhammad, study sharia, actually pick up a
Qur’an – before telling those who have done so they are wrong,
misunderstand the issue, or are hateful. As the adage goes, “Ignorance is
bliss.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • PDF
  • MySpace
  • RSS
  • Tumblr