Isn’t that where genocidal maniac Phillip Atkinson posted his rants (see posts on Dunner’s blog here and here)?

I am not sure by what criteria you call me a “faker”. I have always made my identity clear, as you can see on my “about” page.

As for FPM, the fact is that dozens of your articles appeared there until 2005; after that, you transferred to Family Security Matters, which is of a similar political stripe. It was not “weasel words” or deception, rather, that appeared to be where most of your online writings from that time appeared. It is said that you can tell a man by the company he keeps, and writing article after article for someone’s magazine is more significant than appearing on a platform with him once or twice, something which is commonly used as an excuse to condemn someone. I am sure you choose these magazines because you know people will be only too pleased to hear what you have to say, and won’t see (or even look) through you.

I do know what slander and libel mean. I was not using them in a legal sense, but more in the sense of vituperating or “slagging him off”. Whether your comments were in the spirit of opinion or fact, that will not save you when you answer before Allah, because ghiba means much less than what you have done with your writings. Calling someone a slob is a gratuitous personal insult, unrelated to br. Mas’ud’s (very mild) writings against you (he has not personally insulted you, rather rebutted your hysterical rantings against shaikh Hamza).

As for Tablighi Jama’at: I appreciate that it has opponents among Muslims, the loudest among them being sectarians, namely Brelvis and Wahhabis who accuse them of shirk and all the other things they find wrong in “Sufis”. The point was that there are those who want to stop them having a centre in east London because they oppose them on the same theologicals and methodological grounds for which they have always opposed the TJ. I have never noticed a personality cult among the TJ, whatever other criticisms one might make about them. You connect the Saudi kingdom, the TJ and the global Wahhabi sect, when the TJ are not part of the Wahhabi sect; they are Hanafis with Maturidi aqida.

I do know about pictures of OBL and T-shirts with them on. What about those pictures of him on every other wall and on the sides of buildings? The only people who have received that “honour” are various presidents.

As for shaikh Hamza, the fact remains that you have used two quotes from him, one of them from as far back as 1991, to imply that his entire moderate stance in late 2001 was a fake. That just won’t do; it’s not proof. It only stands as evidence in the court of ignorant and prejudiced non-Muslims whose journals and webzines you write in. People do change in ten years. I am sure that if you had serious evidence of his having an extremist stance in 1999 or thereabouts, just before 9/11, you would have offered it, rather than recycling the same couple of quotes over and over again.

You accuse me of “shirk in devotion to Hanson” and still insist that I might be a blind devotee. I am not. I do not think anybody believes that he is one of the major ulama, let alone a mahdi; we regard him as a teacher of Islam, pure and simple, albeit one who has promoted the teaching and learning of traditional Islam in the USA with much success, ma sha Allah. Will anyone read his books in 100 years? I don’t know, but people in America and the UK might be reading the work of Imam Ghazali and Imam al-Haddad rather than Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Baz in that time, perhaps because one of his parents attended Shaikh Hamza’s lectures. One time I have heard him get heated while delivering a talk was when he was talking about people attacking Imam Ghazali.

And this is, so far, his main achievement: there is an English-based culture of traditional Islam in (parts of) the USA and UK, and it is not entirely his work but he is a big contributor to it (and I was talking about the USA and UK and not Bosnia). I wonder what you have done for this cause, apart from shouting about “the Wahhabi death cult” from the rooftops while denouncing one of its most effective and vocal opponents in the west.

Who is “everyone” (you and David Horowitz?) and what is your definition of fascism? Raimondo is a libertarian, so the militarism and the state intervention in the economy that are the pillars of fascism are not his cup of tea. He reads Murray Rothbard, not the Mein Kampf. Or is it that anyone who is an opponent of you is a fascist?

And how is it that my past as a leftist 24 years ago is somehow relevant but Handsome Hanson cannot be called to account for his extremist speeches before 9/11?

Your role as a Trotsky apologist in the National Review is quite a bit more recent than a quarter of a century ago.

So, the faker behind “Indigo Jo” now engages in more illiterate lies to project the hatred he feels on me and others. That would be absurd if it were not so revealing.

1. “Front Page Magazine, where most of his writings seem to appear.” My last article on Frontpage appeared on June 16, 2005. Since your clock is apparently as busted as your brain, that was more than three years ago. So you engaged in deliberate deception, masked by the hilarious use of the word “seem” — which we real journalists, as opposed to bloggers, call “weasel words.”

2. Your obvious illiteracy includes not knowing what the terms “slander” and “libel” mean. I did not “slander” or “libel” you because all my statements about you were opinion and made without exception in response to your pompous and absurd attacks on me. I never heard of you, that slob Mas’ud Khan, Fareena Alam, or Aftab Malik until you all attacked me. None of you are “prominent Muslims.” Nobody except you and your little circle of narcissists and puffers pays attention to you.

3. The repeat your intimation that only “enemies of the Muslims” oppose Tabligh i Jama’at. That is obviously lying propaganda from you. TJ has many serious opponents in the Muslim world, as you know well.

4. You, in your illiterate fashion, reject the term “Islamofascism” because fascism is, according to you, only a European ideology. Every serious scholar of the Islamic world recognizes the fascist influence in the Muslim Brotherhood. As for the definition of fascism as involving “personality cults (the Fuhrer, the Duce, and so on), and a totalitarian police state with a pervasive display of propaganda and a heavy government hand in the economy” since you were too busy with your narcissistic nonsense you apparently did not notice the role of TJ as a personality cult, the adulation of Bin Laden, and the nature of the Saudi kingdom as a totalitarian police state that engages in global propaganda and close control of its economy. Everyone else notices that. Your illiteracy extends to writing “Even if [OBL] allowed his picture to be taken, the government might not allow the pictures to be displayed.” OBL did various video interviews and issued videos, thus obviously allowing his picture to be taken, as the whole world knows; T-shirts of OBL and posters of him are for sale all over Pakistan. You seem to know nothing that goes on in the Muslim ummah except for your own twitches.

5. You were “willing to excuse” me? Who are you? You are nobody. Your excusing me means nothing to me.

6. I first published on the danger to Muslims in Bosnia in 1987, in a major American newspaper, and every informed Bosnian knows I have written more on this topic than almost any other Western writer. In reality, you silly jackass, the Bosnian war began in 1992, not in 1991. So you cannot put your filthy hands on Bosnia to justify Handsome Hanson’s miserable rhetoric.

7. You misrepresent my quote from Handsome Hanson’s extremist screeching, which you try to disclaim, by mentioning that it dropped some words. Here you are obviously bluffing. Most of the material dropped and replaced by a dieresis were: “F]undamentals of Islam are being compromised… [C]onvention resolutions are meaningless Masonic exersises (sic) devised by men who desire to engage people in forums that would insure nothing changes.” How does this slop change the extremist character of his speech? The outburst by Handsome Hanson was delivered in opposition to an ICNA resolution against the criminal burning of African American churches. Do you dare defend Handsome Hanson’s position on this?

8. When Hanson screamed, in his high-pitched voice, against Pipes’ definition of moderate Islam, he neither described the latter nor made any delicate distinctions such as you insert. He simply yelled his rejection of it. That speaks for itself.

9. Your cult adulation of Hanson is so absurd it is literally hallucinatory. You write, “Without people like Shaikh Hamza, Islamic learning on the four madhhabs would be restricted to Urdu-based teaching by Indian and Pakistani scholars.” So nobody in the Balkans, Turkey, Central Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, or southeast Asia, where nobody reads Urdu and almost nobody except marginal types like you ever heard of Hanson, knows about the mazahib? You write like a Scientologist expressing your illimitable, fawning crush on Handsome Hanson.

10. You question my reference to “Shaikh Hamza’s entourage, a strange idea given that they live in two different countries.” All of us except you have noticed that the Handsome Hanson circus is an international enterprise with gullible followers in many countries.

11. You write that I have expressed “hatred” for “a whole spectrum of Muslims, from Wahhabis to the CAIR leadership to Shaikh Hamza and Mas’ud Khan.” First, you should be clear on the difference between hatred and contempt. I have no hatred for these speculators and parasites. I have contempt for them. And the Wahhabis, CAIR, Handsome Hanson, and Mas’ud the Mouth are not much of a spectrum — in fact they and you are a small, marginal grouping that dedicate yourself to causes no sane Muslim should defend, including trying to prettify Wahhabism, distorting the statements on the record of Hanson, covering for Tabligh i Jamaat, and even offering excuses for the deranged conspiratorialist Harun Yahya. And since when does the latter get his books published by reputable Western publishers?

12. You are such a hysterical little nobody you cannot even get geography right. You mention “the situation of Muslims in the Baltic.” Get an atlas, moron. The Baltic is not the same as the Balkans. The Baltic includes Scandinavia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Lithuania has a fairly significant Tatar community which has existed for 400 years. These are obviously topics of which you know absolutely nothing,

It really comes down, as anyone can see from your incompetent, cowardly, and weak screed, to you having a perverse attachment to Handsome Hanson, to the point of promoting him as a kind of mahdi, and being angry at me for taking issue with his nifaq, which includes squirming between attacking the U.S. Constitution, kissing up to Bush, and pretending to be a Sufi. I have changed nothing in my writings. I defended Shamyl; I still defend the Chechens. I defended Bosnia; I still defend the Bosnians. I denounced Wahhabism as a death cult, which is how Saudi subjects who are oppressed by it, and its victims around the world, describe it; I still do so. How could a deviant sect which killed so many people be described otherwise? You really have no defense to offer for your obloquy except your shirk in devotion to Hanson; you and your admirers and enablers are pathetic nobodies. The idea that anybody will read anything Hanson has said or written in 100 years is ludicrous.

As for publishing in places that also publish things you and I might both disagree with, that is what freedom of the press, which you do not understand, means in the West. Media is like the underground; everybody rides on it and nobody is responsible for the opinions of other passengers.

Regarding the sewer comments by your supporters, everyone in America considers Dennis Raimondo, alias Justin, Pat Buchanan, and Paul Gottfried to have a strong tendency toward neofascism. Gottfried was exposed as fabricating lies about me, which The American Conservative was forced to acknowledge. And how is it that my past as a leftist 24 years ago is somehow relevant but Handsome Hanson cannot be called to account for his extremist speeches before 9/11?

Allah knows best.

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz