Saturday, October 08, 2005

David Forte - TaqiyyaMaster and Advisor to President Bush

We always ask, "Who are the idiots advising the President about Islam?" We all moan when Bush says "Islam is a religion of peace", or "terrorists have distorted and twisted Islam." Who are the idiots telling Bush that is the 'smart' thing to say? Are Muslim agents inside the White House brainwashing the President and his administration? Or is it Infidel 'scholars' of religion who are fascinated, even 'in love' with Islam for whatever idiotic reason, who are advising the President so badly? We all know how the Middle East studies programs have been infiltrated by Muslim agents and apologists for Islam - protecting Islam and lieing when counseling this Administration. David Forte is one of those 'scholars' who has done great harm to America. David Forte is just another symbol of the sickness and corruption that has consumed American Middle East Studies programs in our Universities. See also Defining The Enemy at JihadWatch Oct. 8, 2005 and Fitzgerald: A brief MESA Nostra taxonomy Oct. 8, 2005

Here we have Islam, a cult of death and hate with its Qur'an and Hadiths that spew on almost every page hatred of infidels with endless verses urging death and subjugation of Infidels, being promoted as a 'great' religion by Muslim agents and their Infidel apologists. And Forte is at the forefront, defending Islam, legitimizing Islam and misleading our President and the masses with his lies.

David Forte's favorite adjective for Islam is 'great'. His favorite deceit is that "Islam was hijacked." Mr. Forte argues that "What drives bin Laden is not religious faith of any traditional kind; it is, rather, the all-too-familiar phenomenon of murderous revolutionary ideology politicizing religion for its own purposes." Forte goes even further in stating that "nothing this evil could be religious." Spare me. Is that not the stupidest thing you have ever heard?

That should tell you a lot about how Forte thinks. His main proposition is extremists like bin Laden do not represent historic or mainstream Islam. But this is a lie and he knows it. Taqiyya is not an exclusive to Muslims, but is used adeptly by Islam's apologists like Forte. He promotes his deceit by making ridiculous and false statements like Bin Laden, the Taliban, and their allies '... mocks any semblance of the toleration and peaceful coexistence that have marked much of Islamic history.' Like all 'closetmuslim' apologists, he makes these claims of Islam's historical 'toleration and peaceful coexisitence' knowing full well he is a liar, a taqiyyamaster, and the naive infidels eat it up. How could anyone who studies Islam make such a broad and false statement? Should we call Forte a traitor, a Benedict Arnold for his lies and deceit? I say indeed we should. David Forte is a 'closetmuslim' apologist who is doing grave harm to America by deceiving Bush and this administration with his 'Islam is not the problem' mantra. If Bush was smart, which he isn't, he would kick this taqiyyamaster to the gutter, and don't forget to kick that Muslim agent Grover Norquist to the gutter with him.

His argument that Bin Laden and his followers are a 'tiny minority' has been disproven, but he persists in his taqiyya. Daniel Pipes recognizes Forte's false statements in his article Bin Laden is a Fundamentalist, A reply to David F. Forte. by Daniel Pipes, National Review, October 22, 2001

Professor Forte draws the line differently from me. Whereas Professor Forte sees the problem as a small group of active terrorists in al Qaeda; I see the entire fundamentalist movement constituting the problem. I hold that Islamic fundamentalists stand outside of historic Islam and are already within bin Laden's extremist ranks.

To me, every fundamentalist Muslim, no matter how peaceable in his own behavior, is part of a murderous movement and is thus, in some fashion, a foot soldier in the war that bin Laden has launched against civilization. He mentions the Wahhabis approvingly but I wonder why. In the 1920s, the Wahhabi movement split and the somewhat less extremist elements of this movement defeated the yet more extreme of them. The Taliban regime is a rough approximation of what the more extreme group would have created in Saudi Arabia. Its funding and support comes in good part from Saudi Arabia. In other words, there is a direct line between the Wahhabis and Osama bin Laden.

For this reason, I have written about the fundamentalists, "Many of them are peaceable in appearance, but they all must be considered potential killers." By way of comparison, I would say precisely the same about Nazis and Leninists; however non-violently they might conduct their own lives, the fact that they back a barbaric force means they too are barbarians and must be treated as such.

Sadly, I must report that the sympathizers of Osama bin Laden are legion. Fully one quarter of the populations in Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority (survey research finds, in separate polls both overseen by U.S. organizations) consider the September 11 attacks acceptable according to the laws of Islam. To me, this suggests that a very substantial body of Muslim opinion is already in bin Laden's camp; more, that virtually the whole range of fundamentalist Islamic opinion agrees with his goals and his methods.

This difference between Professor Forte's and my views has immense policy implications. He can cheerfully advise Washington to work with the huge majority of Muslims to isolate a tiny fringe of violent ideologues. I grimly tell the policymakers that the problem is not just the miniscule element he points to but the much larger one of fundamentalists, which I estimate at 10 to 15 percent of the Muslim population. Professor Forte does not explicitly say so, but his argument suggests that the U.S. government can cooperate with regimes such as those of Iran and Saudi Arabia in an effort to isolate the Taliban; I see all three as just different aspects of the same problem.

I wish I could subscribe to Professor Forte's sunny conclusion that "By recognizing bin Laden's evil for what it is, Americans can begin a process of engagement with the vast populations of the Muslim world." Instead, I must offer a more pessimistic formulation: "By recognizing the wide backing of bin Laden's evil for what it is, Americans must begin a process of confrontation with 10 to 15 percent of the vast populations of the Muslim world."

David Forte is a Professor of Law at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law in Cleveland, Ohio and the author of Islamic Studies: Classical and Contemporary Applications (currently in position at 1,649,977 of best sellers at Amazon, 280 pages legitimizing Sharia for $78). He is an Adjunct Fellow of the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University, Ashland, Ohio. He busys himself with 'dialogue' conferences and spreading falsehoods about Islam as tolerant and free thinking.

Here is just a taste of Forte's taqiyya:

"They also mean to hijack Islam itself and to destroy 13 centuries of Islamic civilization. We are not in a war between two civilizations. We are fighting an enemy of two civilizations."

"Bin Laden and other Islamic radicals claim they represent ancient Islam. It is true that they do represent one tradition in Islam, but it is a tradition that Islam early on rejected as opposed to the universal message of its Prophet."[Right there! 'unversal message of its Prophet' Oh what could that message be? Islam must rule the world, the world belongs to Islam and only Islam. That there is no peace until there are only Muslims in the world. That message?]

"Today, radicals like bin Laden replicate that ancient sect that threatened to destroy Islamic civilization at its inception. They copy that sect that stood against what came to be a civilization known in its time for its learning, science, openness and toleration." These broad statements about Islam's openness and toleration and scientific learning are lies, and David Forte is their taqiyyamaster. Bostom's new book The Legacy of Jihad destroys David Forte's taqiyya, and that is a good thing.

In his latest book, Studies in Islamic Law: Classical and Contemporary Applications, (1999) (ISBN: 1572921285), Forte actually believes there is legitimacy in the grotesque Sharia laws. You know, the Sharia, that requires infidels to convert, become dhimmis or be killed. The Sharia that advocates amputation for theft and stoning for homosexuals and adulterers. He also says 'Free enterprise has always been a hallmark of Islamic law and Muslim economies.' Who is he kidding? Free enterprise a hallmark of Muslim economies? That's why Muslims lead the world in patents! Not. That's why the ummah has a 50% illiteracy rate! I could go on, but will stop, it's just too easy.

ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome , Code: ZE05030923, Date: 2005-03-09, Islamic Law and Its Democratic Potential, Interview With David Forte, a Vatican Consultor and Bush Adviser

In his article Religion is Not the Enemy (NRO), Don’t look at bin Laden and see Islam, Forte asserts '..I have baldly asserted that bin Laden and his extremists are evil, pure and simple, and Islam is not.

In Islam, Past and Future, David F. Forte, Action Institute Religion and Liberty, Forte states "...Islam has in its history great traditions of tolerance, learning, and spirituality. We should all hope that Muslims can once again enjoy those marvelous fruits of their Abrahamic faith." That reminds me of the saying 'if you proclaim a lie often enough as truth, it can become true.' David Forte puts deceit into practice with aplomb.

Radical Islam vs. Islam, Editorial, September 2001

Robert Tracinski, in his article The Fundamentalist Threat, Monday, November 12, 2001,By: Robert Tracinski points out the fallacy of Forte and his cadre of Muslim agent scholars and Infidel apologists:

The role of the religious right in shaping this approach has been nicely documented by The New Republic's Franklin Foer, who has traced, for example, the influence of David Forte, a conservative law professor who has advised the administration on the nature of Islam and whose phrases are echoed in President Bush's speeches. Forte is responsible for convincing Bush that bin Laden's views reflect only a tiny radical fringe in the Muslim world, that Islam is a peaceful religion, and, in a bizarre twist, that Islamic terrorists "are not religious" because, he decrees, "nothing this evil could be religious."

Similarly, Grover Norquist [a Muslim agent doing great harm inside the White House] of Americans for Tax Reform has long campaigned to recruit American Muslims into the Republican party. Politically speaking, he says, "American Muslims look like members of the Christian coalition." In other words, the religious right views Islamic fundamentalists as potential allies in promoting its own fundamentalist agenda.

Forte and other religious conservatives have spent years complaining that American government is too secular, that it "discriminates" against religious fundamentalists. "Faith," Forte laments, "is an outlaw in the public square." The fundamentalist attempts to bring faith back into the public square have ranged from prayer in schools, to laws against abortion, to threatening Hollywood movies with government oversight, to quashing the teaching of evolution in favor of the superstitious humbug of "creationism."

Every evil perpetrated by the Islamic fundamentalists is just one, or two--or 10--steps farther down the same road. Prayer in schools? In Saudi-funded religious schools, there is little else. Outlawing abortion? The Taliban have gone one better, effectively outlawing all medical care for women. Censorship of movies? Iran bans satellite dishes to protect its citizens from impious foreign influences. Evolution? A move in Pakistan sought to outlaw the law of cause and effect. Instead of teaching that combining hydrogen and oxygen makes water, a Pakistani scientist recalls, "You were supposed to say that when you bring hydrogen and oxygen together, then by the will of Allah water was created."


dag said...

Nice to have this piece all at once. I'd be afraid, if I were he, of meeting up wioth the ghost of Theo. van Gogh. How long can these dhimmi slugs slide along without getting stepped on? And who'd have known about him if not for the Net? Nice expose.

(Re: Kids in the Hall. I saw it once, a skit of guys sitting around a campfire remebering a friend who died. Very touching, right up till the time they revealed they''d killed him and eaten him.)

Always On Watch said...

What an outstanding article! GWB is being fed a load of lies about Islam. Has he learned no lesson from Alamoudi? We all remember Alamoudi, right? He attended White House functions under both the Clinton and Bush administrations and stood side by side with Bush at the National Cathedral service on 9/14/01. Then--surprise, surprise--Alamoudi turned out not to be so moderate after all. He's in prison now. See

There's also some information about Faisal Gill at the above link.

Now, what Forte says sounds reasonable--until one checks what the Koran actually teaches. It's hard to believe that such a book is the guide for a large portion of people living in the 21st Century.

American Crusader said...

Nothing amazes me more than when Muslim scholars or uninformed apologist claim that Islam has been hijacked. From its very inception, Islam has been a religion of hate and conquest. Islam has attempted to invade Europe dating back to the Moors. There is no hijacking here... this plane is on autopilot.
Great Article!

dag said...

Where do we go from here?

We see clearly that which it seems our political and cultural leaders either do not see or will not admit to seeing. And, the people, are lead by men and women who are not only doing us a disservice, not only doing us harm as a culture, but they are making our very lives tenuous by not adjusting to the norm of war in our time. Our nations aren't safe from take-over by a hostile ideology, and worse, some of our people are getting killed for sitting in their offices and for riding on the subway.

The first duty of a legitimate state is to protect the welfare of the citizenry. That's it. We give up our specific individual right to rape, pillage, and murder at random, (as we would in a stateless nation without civil laws) for the security from our fellows who would go on a rampage against us in an uncivil nation. But what do we get for our submission to the law? We give up our right to protect ourselves to the state so the state can, as a unity, a politiy, be all of us in common weal. If we give up our rights as individuals then the state has to justify its existence by protecting us. What the Hell is going on here?

I'm not blaming the state. Nor do I blame the politicians who take bribes from our enemies, who pander and grovel and cetera to the Saudis. Why not? Well, who piut our politicians in the position to be scum-bags? The majority of voters. We get what we paid our votes for.

And what are we doing to change this lot of scum for men and women who will do a better job?

We have positive law in the West. It comes about by common consent. We do not have sharia law. We do not, thank God, have natural law. We try to live like rational and civilized people groping slowly toward a better and constantly improving legal morality. But what's happening to our nations? We are abandoning our values to the dhimmi slugs crawling across the face of History to the nearest salt-lick. It can't be right.

Where do we go from here?

Always On Watch said...

Yesterday, I posted on two realities of Islam, and addressed the Islamic definitions of "innocent" and peace." I rather think that Forte and Norquist won't like what I had to say.

BTW, I've sent the link for this article about Forte to several people. An eye-opener here!

John Sobieski said...

I agree. Forte and these other apologists should be confronted. Its one thing to spew the lies in some obscure journal and quite another to tell them to our President and endanger all of America.

American Crusader said...

I know I have said this before...but I have to believe that behind closed doors Bush does understand the true nature of Islam. If he were to tell the American people that Islam was truly a religion of hate and on a mission of conquest and submission, the liberals in office and the biased media would brand him a racist and leave him politically impotent.

Eliyahu mTsiyon said...

Only in the past few years has Pakistan gotten the negative attention that it deserves. Somebody mentioned that chemistry lessons wanted "by Allah's will" or some such before explaining H2O as hydrogen and oxygen, in Paki schools. But it's worse. Books in English about Islam published in Pakistan undergo continuing bowdlerization. Consider the Dictionary [or Encyclopedia] of Islam compiled by a Britisher, Thomas Hughes [as I recall his name] in the 19th century. This is a good and useful book and was regularly published in Lahore while the British were there. I first saw a printing from 1938 or about then. Then I saw later editions published under the Pakistani dispensation. Various articles in the Encyc have been cut up, curtailed, abbreviated, on account of offense to Muslim orthodoxy. Indeed, the publishers put a notice in one post-Pak independence [post-1947] edition asking readers to notify them of violations of or offenses to Islam found in the latest edition. That is, they are asking readers to help them reduce the book even more. Naturally, whereas Hughes had pointed out some Judaic and Christian influences on the Quran, the Paki editions had edited out those references, especially notable in the item on Jews & Judaism. Pakistan is mind-boggling. How can liberals who supposedly advocate liberty, and leftists who supposedly advocate equality, support the Muslim fanatics?

John Sobieski said...

elayihu asked...How can liberals who supposedly advocate liberty, and leftists who supposedly advocate equality, support the Muslim fanatics?

Well, if you go over to Huffington Posts and look at Sam Harris' article on the danger of Islam and,most importantly, the comments, you may have your answer.

There are liberals who will defend Islam and multiculturalism while their throats are slit and they post over there.

Sam Harris Bombing Our Illusions at The Huffington Post

Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^

徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,

徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦

Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社