Roving Reporter Basla Nasruddin interviews the director of the film "I Just Know North America is Filled with Islamists" about his claims that his film was censored by Islamists working for the Public Service of Broadcasters.
Q: First, can you explain to us what you mean by “Islamists” at PSB?
A: Yes, the consultants on the series are Islamists or Islamist collaborators. There is obviously no need to elaborate on these terms since everyone knows what they mean.
Q: How did you come to this conclusion?
A: I made a simple, straightforward and honest documentary about moderate muslims. These consultants criticized parts of the film. Hence the consultants are Islamists or Islamist collaborators. Islamists silence moderate thought. If moderates are criticized, then those who criticize them are Islamist.
Q: I'm sorry, maybe we can back up a bit. Your documentary, in part, focuses on moderate Muslim voices in North America. But how did you settle on a definition of who is moderate?
A: It takes one to know one. If you are a truthful person, you know the truth when you see it. As soon as I saw Tarek Fatah I knew he was telling the truth. He told me he was a moderate. Fatah, then, gave us helpful insight into identifying Islamists. What more do you want?
Q: Let's replay that for our readers. Fatah claims in your documentary that much of the North American Muslim community is
Islamist or covering over for the Islamists. You argue that instead of something more like "Little Mosque on the Prairie," we have herds of Islamists thundering over lands turning dying farms into terrorist training camps and burned-out bodegas into store-front Islamist madrasas and mosques?
A: Ha! You should know that "Little Mosque on the Prairie" is an Islamist front!
Look, Fatah's "truth index" was through the roof! We were stunned that so many people from so many different perspectives, Muslim, Non-Muslim, Secular, Religious, Gay, Straight, Conservative, Traditionalist, and Progressive alike agreed that his characterization of the Muslim American community as strongly Islamist was inaccurate to the point of delusional. If that broad a number of people agree that his work is inaccurate that guarantees its accuracy.
Q: I disagree. I would not think it would guarantee either its accuracy or inaccuracy, but it might lead one to wonder why so many different kinds of people find his claims problematic. Did you investigate that angle at all?
A: We didn’t need to. The truth index is a logical truth-indicating mechanism. It is sufficient. Listen, the truth index is calculated on a number of rational criteria specific to particular aspects of the essential truth present in any one datum. When enough truth data about a person are covertly collected and stored in an intelligence base, we can judge the truthfulness of that person with .098 accuracy. But the truth index is only a complement to and support of the honed “it takes one to know one” skill. For instance, I am a truthful person, so I know a truthful person when I see one. But the truth index gives me objective mechanism for proving the truth of any number of factors thus allowing me to accurately demonstrate the truthfulness of a person to others who may not initially agree.
Q: If someone continues to disagree with you?
A: Then we know that person is a disagreeable liar. But I typically know a person is a liar previous to the proof of it. The truth index is a complementary foolproof for what we already know, remember. I see you still look confused. Let me try to explain it from another angle.
As I said, one factor in determining the truthfulness of a person is the degree to which other people think that person is wrong. The more wrong a person is perceived as being, the more truthful the person must be. This is very simple logic, you must admit.
So, we know that if someone receives a death threat, that person must be right. After all, receiving a death threat is a strong indicator that someone disagrees with you. The truth index has shown that one death threat is equal to 147.3 people disagreeing with you. The more death threats a person receives, the more truthful they are. This is a true fact as anyone can see through. So in Tarek Fatah's case and in the case of other demonstrable moderates, the number of death threats they have received is calculated into their overall truth index score.
Q: But Hamza Yusef has now been accused of being an Islamist and associated with the criticism of the film. Hamza Yusef has received death threats, so how can he be an Islamist?
A: Yes, yes, yes. You still do not understand. Look. This is logical! Hamza Yusef is a liar according the truth index, but I knew this even before I consulted the truth index. The death threat is just one of many categories of analysis used to determine the truthfulness of an individual. In other factors, Yusef fails. In any case, with respect to death threats, Fatah has received 4.25 more death threats than Yusef, so that makes Fatah 850% more truthful than Hamza Yusef.
Just today the National Press Club demonstrated the validity of the truth index in Fatah's case! Let me read from this press release: "The founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, Tarek Fatah, is being recognized today by the National Press Club for his work perseverance as an activist, writer and broadcaster despite facing numerous death threats and intimidation by extremists."
See it works! The higher the number of death threats a person receives, the more truthful that person is.
Q: Can you tell if I am truthful or not?
A: We would have to collect your truth data first. But I can tell you right now that I know you are an Islamist.
Q: Oh.
Post new comment