New York Times takes up Hamas-linked CAIR's cause of trying to force the FBI to stop telling the truth about Islam

This morning the New York Times has picked up on the effort by the hard Left and Islamic supremacist groups to intimidate the FBI into abandoning all attempts to teach the truth about Islam and jihad, which I wrote about at length yesterday here. The agenda of Hamas-linked CAIR is obvious in their outrage over FBI training materials: they want the Feds to stop teaching the truth about Islam, and to supply agents only with a whitewashed, misleading picture that will leave them woefully ill-equipped to understand or deal adequately with jihad terror plotting in the U.S. The Leftist media, including now the New York Times, with its usual suicidal short-sightedness and fashionable anti-anti-terror stance, has eagerly signed on to this campaign.

Here is one section from the Times' piece on this today: "F.B.I. Chided for Training That Was Critical of Islam," by Erica Goode in the New York Times, September 16:

The agency was also criticized last year for inviting Robert Spencer, an anti-Muslim blogger, to speak to a joint terrorism task force.

“This isn’t a revelation to us,” said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an advocacy group in Washington. “We’ve been dealing with this issue for quite some time now.”

He added, “There’s a problem with the use of anti-Islamic trainers and Islamophobic materials.”

I wrote this to Erica Goode:

I am not "anti-Muslim," as I have stated many times. It is not "anti-Muslim" to stand for human rights for all people, including Muslims, and to defend the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for women, all of which are denied under traditional forms of Sharia. Nor am I merely a blogger, but the author of 10 books, two of which were New York Times bestsellers. Nor is CAIR simply a neutral Muslim advocacy group, but a Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood-linked group with many former officials convicted of terror plotting. I hope next time you write about this you will attempt at least some semblance of objective journalism, but I have no high hopes.

Robert Spencer

Like Spencer Ackerman, Erica Goode makes no attempt to determine whether or not the material in the FBI training is true or accurate. She just takes for granted that it must be false (I show that it is true here), and assumes also that Hamas-linked CAIR and the ADC are the honest brokers in this controversy. It is typical, but no less excusable for that.

UPDATE 12:05PM Saturday 9/17: I just received this email from Erica Goode:

Dear Mr. Spencer, Thanks for your email. We are changing the sentence online to read "a blogger and author widely perceived as hostile to Islam." CAIR is defined in the piece as an advocacy group. Best wishes, Erica Goode

I responded:

Dear Ms. Goode,

I much appreciate the change, although it is factually inaccurate: I am not hostile to Islam. I am hostile to the oppression of women, and to the denial of the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience. Aren't you? The idea that I am hostile to Islam because I tell the truth about its teachings is part of an OIC-led effort by Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups like CAIR to squelch any honest discussion of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and recruit and motivate terrorists. I think the goal of such an effort is obvious. Meanwhile, regarding CAIR as an advocacy group, would you also characterize the KKK or the Aryan Nations as an advocacy group?

Thanks for your note.

| 34 Comments | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet


It might be an interesting court case if Mr Spencer were to take NYT to court and demand they substantiate the claim that any of his 1,000s of articles, or many books, are anti-Muslim, as opposed to anti-Islam.

The resulting media coverage would promote the anti-Islam, pro human rights stance of Mr Spencer and his myriad supporters from all 'round the world.

And given the amount of money the NYT is losing, they might balk at the thought of an expensive payout for libel and settle for a public apology and recognition of their error.

That would be something.

I went to the "NY Slimes" after reading this and the top headline was "Libya Counts More Martyrs Than Bodies". The first sentence read "Officially, according to Libya’s new leaders, their martyrs in the struggle against the government". "Martyrs"? Really!? Since when do we call deaths in a military confrontation martyrs? They are not martyrs. They are dead soldiers.

A martyr is someone who is murdered in cold blood because of their religious beliefs.

The Christian apostles were martyrs. Christians who are murdered by mohammedan soldiers are martyrs. Dead Mohammedan soldiers are dead Mohammedan soldiers.

When these CAIR goons, or the ones under the leadership of OIC's Ekmeleddin Insaneglouglouglouglou, scream "islamophobia", it's always eye-opening islamo-realism that they're attacking.

I hope the FBI won't willingly allow itself to be rid of islamo-realist material. It would be like the CIA fighting against communism by waxing lyrical about the wonders of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The devil's in the detail

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last”~ Winston Churchill

Erica Goode is mixing things up. She writes, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (used) training material that characterized the prophet Muhammad as a "cult leader." One might infer this is what Spencer taught at the joint terrorism task force. Goode gave that impression to the reader, whether by intent or not. I haven't read this characterization of Muhammad in any of his books; nor that Islam is a "satanic cult," etc. FBI has the right, I suppose, to hire or rely on any kook "expert" on Islam they wish but it does not serve the organization well.

I appreciate your sentiment, Buraq. However, I think it would do more harm than good to make courts and law judgments the arbiters of what is published. Libels cases are valid mainly where the writer knowingly or maliciously gave out false information about someone.

Unfortunately, the distinction between anti_Muslim and anti-Islam is not one that everyone appreciates. What would happen in a court case is that the judgement would revolve around the sophistication of the judge and jury, not to mention their commitment to an unfettered press. I would certainly not bring a finding against the New York Times for libel on the basis of that story.

We're much better off defending the rights of free speech in all circumstances. You can be sure that any precedence of limiting free speech will be taken full advantage of by the Islamist forces who are trying to suppress all criticism of Islam.

The NYT is on it's last dying breath. Just like Solyndra, Lightsquared and eventually the rest of all socialist supported enttities, including the one that is in the White House.

I e-mailed Goode and informed her of a few things concerning Spencer and concerning Islam. I hope she learned.

Robert, what Buraq suggests is an idea worth thinking about.

How does the NYTimes write all this without even a semblance of journalistic research?
Before this article appears in print, NYT should find out if what Robert writes is true or not.
If they think it is not true, then they should come up with a counter-view/critique of what he says in his books.

He added, “There’s a problem with the use of anti-Islamic trainers and Islamophobic materials.”

Yes, I bet there is...It would be better to let Imams do all the teaching...Of course the FBI should be more interested in fact than fiction...With Robert they get fact, with the Imam, they will get fiction...

Erica Goode has published a large number of stories, on a large number of topics, in the New York Times;=&submit.x;=9&submit.y;=12

Robert is correct in calling her out on her writing sloppiness, but she is surely doing nothing more than parroting the approved official views of the NYT. What editor at the Times would force her to clean up her act and write responsibly? What other writer would chide her for biased reporting at the morning staff meetings? Rather, one imagines she would be congratulated for writing such a fine piece that would resonate with like-minded inhabitants of the Leftist bubble.
A brief bio of Erica Goode*, from

"Erica Goode writes about human behavior for the New York Times. Before coming to the paper in 1998, she was an assistant managing editor at U.S. News and World Report and the editor of the news magazine's Science and Ideas section. She took up editing there after spending 8 years as a senior writer, covering the behavioral sciences as well as national and international news.

"Ms. Goode was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and graduated from the University of Michigan magna cum laude in 1974. She received a masters of science degree in social psychology from the University of California, Santa Cruz, in 1978, and passed her candidacy orals with high distinction in 1979.

"In 1980, Ms. Goode was a mass media fellow in the program sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and spent the summer working at the San Francisco Chronicle. She left graduate school when the newspaper offered her a job, and spent six years there as a general assignment reporter and a science writer specializing in psychology and mental health. She also spent a year on an invited fellowship at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.

"Ms. Goode has freelanced for a variety of publications, including Vogue, Self and Mirabella. She has won awards from the National Mental Health Association, the American Psychiatric Association and other mental health organizations."
*It should be noted that bios like this are usually written by the subject him/herself.


I like that. At this point, I shall no longer consider myself an islamophobe, but an islamorealist.

It has a better ring to it!

Letter just emailed to Erica Goode:


Your article today describes Robert Spencer as "anti-Muslim" without qualification, as if it's simply a fact. Yet this is only biased opinion -- certainly CAIR's, perhaps yours as well.

Spencer would never identify himself this way and denies this label emphatically. Your article is neither an editorial nor an opinion piece. If simply reporting the news, shouldn't this accusatory, denigrating label be attributed to someone else? Would the NYT ever label someone as "racist" or "antisemitic" or "anti-gay" using a simple factual adjective?

Of course not.

I looked up NYT articles on Google on three people who recently made the news: Helen Thomas, Mel Gibson, and John Galliano (e.g., search for mel gibson antisemitic on Google).

Surprise, surprise. Among a couple thousand articles, many of which are opinion pieces, it appears (I looked at a few dozen) that not once was the word "antisemitic" ever used as an adjective to describe any of these people -- rather, if the word is used at all, the articles refer to "anti-semitic remarks."

Here, for instance, we see that the NYT can only go so far as to say that Galliano was "accused" of making antisemitic insults:

Under what rules of journalistic integrity is Robert Spencer simply "anti-Muslim" but Galliano and Gibson only make "antisemitic remarks"? Where are the "anti-Muslim" remarks that Spencer has made? Since you apparently can't find any, why is it ok to just call Spencer "anti-Muslim"?

Here is one of Spencer's earlier responses to being labeled "anti-Muslim" by the NY Times (

The first clue as to the bias of Scott Shane comes in the title's reference to "Anti-Muslim Thought," as if I am fighting against human beings, rather than against a radically intolerant and repressive ideology. Seven years ago here at Jihad Watch I had an exchange with an English convert to Islam. I said: "I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc." Is all that "anti-Muslim"? My correspondent thought so. He responded: "So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims."

I look forward to your response, though I'm not holding my breath.


The problem with Baraq's suggestion is that it will breathe new life in NYT readership, threby prolonging it's existance.

Sometimes the threat, or even an insinuation of a lawsuit, has a better effect than an actual lawsuit...

Go get em Robert. I'm glad I'm on your side, nothing else makes any sense, at all.

The Old Gray Whore's tender sensitivities about training that holds Islam suspect doees not extend to infidel creeds, as its executive editor Bill Keller made clear in a recent Sunday magazine article:

"This year’s Republican primary season offers us an important opportunity to confront our scruples about the privacy of faith in public life — and to get over them. ... I do care if religious doctrine becomes an excuse to exclude my fellow citizens from the rights and protections our country promises. And I care a lot if a candidate is going to be a Trojan horse for a sect that believes it has divine instructions on how we should be governed."

Funny thing, Bill -- we who wish to subject Islam to exposure, analysis, criticism, and mockery care about precisely the same things.

It doesn't surprise me that the NT Times would join Islamist organizations in crying out about the FBI having Robert Spencer teach classes about Islam. However, as a 16 yr vet. of law enforcement I would caution them with a brief history reminder. The Branch Davidians in Waco Texas. One expert said that the torching of the Davidian building took them by surprise even though they had consulted experts on religion on how to proceed. Therein lays the problem. There are experts and then there are experts. Listening to him spend so much of his time teaching from the book of Revelation should have been a dead giveaway that their world would go up in flames. Obviously, the FBI's experts missed that but it was obvious to those of us who labor in both theology and criminal justice that this was a very good possibility. Sure, the FBI could get another more "acceptable" expert to teach but remember your history. Don't let it repeat itself because this time it might be our country going up in flames. I know of no one any better than Mr. Spencer who has such a firm grasp of Islam, both it's theology and history.

" We are changing the sentence online to read " a blogger and author widely perceived as hostile to Islam ".

How kind of you, Erica Goode !

Will you also publish an apology to Robert Spencer for your misleading statements, in tomorrows printed version of The New York Times ?

The fools who pay $5.00 for the Sunday Times edition have a right to know also, don't you think ?

Perhaps Scott Shane can help you out, if you are at a loss for words. He's been there, done that, too.

Magnificent response as always, Robert.

"Unfortunately, the distinction between anti_Muslim and anti-Islam is not one that everyone appreciates."

RonaldB, that is VERY true. But still, this is what both prosecutors AND judges (the second batch) in the trial in Holland against Geert Wilders decided as a crucial difference. And that is why the prosecutors did not want to prosecute in the first place and the judge did not want to convict in the end.

It continues to be a bone of contention however.

I sent this letter to Erica Goode:

18 September 2011
Erica Goode
The New York Times

Erica Goode:

I am less sanguine about Islam than is Robert Spencer, with whom you have exchanged emails about your misrepresentation of his position on the religion. I have read his remarks on Jihad Watch of September 17th this morning, and see that the issue remains unresolved. You have merely compounded one insinuative statement about his public position on Islam with another which supposedly corrects the first.

I have nearly unbounded admiration for Mr. Spencer – he does not mention it in his emails to you, but he has received countless death threats from Muslims but courageously continues to speak out about the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, and write about what a horrendous, barbaric creed it is, particularly its ethic of Sharia law – albeit I disagree with him on some points about Islam. Mr. Spencer writes in his email to you that he is neither “anti-Muslim” nor “hostile to Islam,” when, frankly, he should be.

Revealed in its fundamental anti-mind tenets (do not question the authority of Mohammad), Islam is basically a totalitarian ideology garbed in religious vestments and expounded in pious but venal rhetoric. Its core imperatives command violence – against non-believers, against property owners, against women, against any Western value of freedom of thought and mind. Its central icon is not a pacific Jesus Christ who preaches loving one’s neighbor and tolerance (I am an atheist, so I do not subscribe to Christian morality), but a pedophilic and very-much psychotic brigand, Mohammad who embarked on a campaign of conquest.

Violence is Islam’s defining characteristic. Strip of the creed of its belligerent imperatives, and the wind and appeal would be taken from Islam. It would be akin to the Amish version of Christianity, and certainly would not be the inspiration for all the murders, rapes, mutilations, and terrorist acts committed by those who practice the religion and not just “observe” it.

So, I would admit without hesitation that I am hostile to Islam. Necessarily, I am hostile to any believer in, subscriber or convert to the creed. If you wish to understand Islam, I recommend re-reading Orwell’s dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and if you can grasp the principles of INGSOC, with Mohammad substituting for Big Brother, you will have grasped what is required of Muslims – that they surrender their minds to arbitrary authority and their bodies to the collective. Its morality is utterly antithetical to the individualism of America, and necessarily hostile to it. Thus the clash between Islam and what freedom is left in this country.

I do wish journalists would take the time to study Islam before writing so blithely and carelessly about it, as you did. Mr. Spencer was right to chide you about quoting Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR. CAIR, like every other Islamic or Muslim “advocacy” group in this country, including the ISNA, the ICNA, and the MSA, is a subsidiary or branch of The Muslim Brotherhood, whose founding document calls for the conquest of the West by hook or by crook.


Edward Cline
Williamsburg, VA

(Author: Sparrowhawk, First Prize, Presence of Mind, Honors Due, China Basin, The Head of Athena, The Daedàlus Conspiracy, etc.)

Robert, please do me a favor and send some information over to the Columbia School of Journalism.

I was in New York City on September 11, 2001, because I HAD to be there. I attended your rally and just walked the streets to share it with fellow Americans.

My sign "We Will Not Submit" attracted a lot of attention and I gave several short and lengthy interviews to people about it and Islam.

Many of the interviewers identified themselves as students at Columbia. I wish I could speak with your expertise, and I wish I had turned the tables on them, because clearly they knew little about Islam.

Send some info over there. They are in the dark.
Thanks for all you do.

No surprize here. The U.S. has been sending money to people that don't neccessarily like us and are not our friends for decades.

The problem is our news media, legislators don't know the first thing about the ideology of any of these people. So it doesn't help our positive effort at all. In fact it hurts it. Imagine sending money to Hiters SS during world war two with the idea that the SS would become our friends against Hitler.

The ideology of Islam is clear to everyone except our news media, legislators, courts, and Department of Defense. All you have to do is pick up any news paper and read it for yourself. They trip ver themselves trying to appease Islam. The radical Muslims have been telling us for 5 decades exactly what they intend to do. And yet we continue sending them billions of dollars to try to appease them. There is a word for that its called treason.

The leaders of this nation must stop appeasing the enemy of this nation. Anything less is one step forward and two steps backwards regarding homeland security.

Hello.... there are radical Muslims working in high places in this country. Of course they didn't announce that they are the enemy. They want to win our trust and move us away from the truth. Used car dealers have been hidding the truth for 100 years now. In Islams case its 1400 years, its called taqiyya and they use it as a key to open thousands of doors throughout the world for their cause.

The truth is not found in Islam take that to heart. Islam has not kept so much as one agreemment or promise yet. "Beware of gift burying and kind talking strangers". The heart and soul of Islam is to conqure the world by "any means" neccessary because Allah has told them to.

Would someone please inform our the news media and legislators so they will be removed from ignorance. Because as things stand today most news media and legislators are commiting treason by helping and appeasing the enemies of the United States. Ignorance shouldn't be an excuse at this late date.

Outstanding comment vnbushman. True ignorance, gullibility and pretending to be ignorant, are all inexcusble.

The odor of a skunk is always the odor of a skunk. You cannot pretend it is anything else. It just always stinks...and stinks up anything it comes into contact with.

Ms. Goode, if you are reading this, let me state clearly that I AM ANTI-ISLAM. Would you tut-tut and finger-wag if I said I was anti-Nazism? (Anti-Communism, yes, one assumes that of a NYT "journalist", dahling.) But then, Nazism was not a "religion" (though Hitler intended to make it one, with himself at its center), and unlike supernaturalist ideologies, there is no stigma attached to rejection of something that cannot be defined as a "faith".

I am opposed to every single tenet the "faith" of Islam from its contention that we live in an inherently chaotic universe presided over by an undefinable god of pure Will (there's that Nazism echo again, Erica) to whom we must prostrate ourselves in utter, unthinking submission, to its petty little rulings on the proper ritualized use of the porcelain convenience. I am in particular opposed to its loudly trumpted imperative that its rule be imposed upon everyone on the globe through violence and stealth if "necessary". In the face of overwhelming evidence, you apparently persist in refusing to believe that such is their blueprint for spreading their "faith".

Were it not for your obstinate refusal to even consider the validity of any negative evaluation of Islam I might think you were deluded that Muslims practicing dawah were the equivalent of evangelicals of various denominations politely knocking on the front door toting bibles. But frankly, my dear, I think you don't give a damn.

(Special to mary: it breaks my heart that you ask for the truth to be sent to Columbia's school of alleged journalism. They won't read it, mary. They don't care. They don't want the truth. Those people would not accept the truth about Islam any more than they would about communism back in the 1960s when they were urging on the leftist rioters in the days when Barack Hussein Obama's friends were the ones setting off bombs around New York.)

Robert, I have no idea why anyone reads the NY Times anymore. At one time it was a fine paper. Now it is nothing but a rag which regurgitates leftest ideology without regard to truth or facts.

The recent story on you is a fine example of brainless reporting. Don't worry about facts. Just write what feels good.

I doubt you will ever see any correction on the story. Again, its not facts, its about bashing anything seen as on the right. Since CAIR is anti American then the NY Times is all for it.

It's a worthless rag and useful only for the garbage.

Robert Spencer says, I am not "anti-Muslim," as I have stated many times.

I am. They are at war with us. We are infidels. They hate us. They hate Jews. They hate Christians. They hate Americans. They want to kill us. They have beening killing us. They killed 3,000 of us on 9/11. What's wrong with being anti-Muslim?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being anti-Muslim or anti-Islam. It is exactly the same as being pro-life and pro-freedom and worshipping the G-d of all Creation, instead of the satanic pagan moon-god "allah" who commands his followers to kill innocents, behave savagely toward women, and then call themselves "martyrs".

As stated earlier, a martyr is someone who is murdered for his or her religious beliefs, and who did harm to no one. That is, if you are a normal rational thinking human being, this is your definition of a martyr.

For what it is worth, Michael;

It is logical for me when other people are against us, to find out where then we are for. And I have decided that I am pro democracy worldwide, with all it's principles, not just elections. And with favoring the Golden Rule and human rights.

I found out that Islamic teaching is either outright anti-democratic or else so confused that hundreds of millions of Muslims derive anti-democratic principles to believe and practice from it. So I am anti-Islam (and then only the political part).

But because I am also a democrat I have to reckon with the majority of citizens in the West. And they, out of some misguided sense of fairness, defend the "poor Muslims". We think that being in a religion is the choice of every Muslim and so every Muslim is responsible for being in it.

But even many of us, like Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders acknowledge for now that it it extremely difficult for most Muslims to break free from Islam.

And also we have to reckon with the perception of the majority of Westerners that Muslims deserve full freedom of religion and are totally innocent until proven guilty. These treat Muslims as if being Muslim is racial, which it is not.

Then there is the law, which gives full freedom of speech about all religions, but which does protect certain groups of people. Islam is a religion and without law-protection, Muslims are a group of people who are protected by law. These laws were used openly in the trial against Geert Wilders. The verdict was that he was innocent of insulting or stigmatizing a whole group of people, the Muslims. He had explicitly said that he only was against Islam, not the Muslims. And that was why he was acquitted.

Because of the difficulties with attaching accountability asked from Muslims for being part of this totalitarian ideology and the deeply entrenched convictions of our own democratic majority it seems wise to distinquish to be for now only anti-Islam, not anti-Muslims.

But I hope some day some genius from our side can convince the majority that even born and raised Muslims, living in the West, simply are guilty of remaining as an adult in an organisation, Islam, or the Ummah, which in respect to democratic laws must be considered illegal/ criminal in democratic nations.

And that Muslims must reform in favor of democracy or be asked to leave a democratic nation, with whose enemies they remain in the same organisation. Enemies, who clearly believe in and practice clear anti-democratic laws, a lot of whom Robert Spencer already has identified and pointed at and this was well referenced from the Quran, Hadith and theological islamic schools.

Here is Erica Goode from early October of 2001, writing soon after 9/11:

"Rational and Irrational Fears Combine in Terrorism's Wake"

She writes about terrorism—which is generic and has no modifier such as "Islamic"—as though it were some sort of natural disaster that makes people a bit jumpy and irrational.

Here she quotes a Dr. Daniel Gilbert, professor of psychology at Harvard:

"We don't like that feeling," Dr. Gilbert said. "We want to do something about it. And, at the moment, there isn't anything particular we can do, so we buy a gas mask and put an American decal on our car and take trains instead of airplanes."

This is just astonishing—lumping in "putting an American decal" (does he mean American flag decal?) with the rest, as though it were used as some sort of primitive talisman to ward off harm.

What this is, instead, is a simple reaffirmation of American values in the face of Jihad terror—a perfectly rational and life-affirming response.

There is absolutely *no sense* that 9/11 was anything other than an isolated, even rather freakish incident—like a "100-year flood" or an earthquake on the east coast. There is no sense that there could be more terror attacks, and anyone who plans for one is portrayed as a crank. All examples of such concerns are made to look silly—like people buying gas masks or stocking up on Cipro in case of an Anthrax scare.

There's more nattering on about the supposedly greater hazards of eating charcoal-broiled hamburgers.

It is as though, in the wake of Pearl Harbor, there had been a call for seatbelt laws and increased ladder safety—but no actual response to the Axis attack.

Skeen66 wrote:


Edward Cline...

Skeen66, I have always enjoyed your comments, but I had no idea that you were Edward Cline. I read your work regularly over at Capitalism Magazine–excellent stuff. Thank you.

Leave a Comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.