HuffPo Arabic pushes anti-Semitism and demonization of gays

It’s not clear that, with the HuffPo, the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. In November, the Arabic edition of the site, which appears even more in love with Islam than is the American version, published a blog post (in Arabic here), that was a nasty, anti-Semitic accusation of a Jew poisoning Mohammed. This was noticed by the Anti-Defamation League, which reports this:

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today voiced disappointment over the failure by editors at HuffPost Arabi to remove a blatantly anti-Semitic blog after it was first brought to their attention several weeks ago. The Arabic-language blog promotes a conspiracy theory blaming Jews for the death of the Prophet Mohammed.

“It is troubling that an anti-Semitic screed cleared The Huffington Post’s editorial review process and that our concerns so far have been ignored,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, ADL CEO. “We call on The Huffington Post to immediately remove this offensive entry and to ensure that the proper safeguards are in place so that the Arabic site is free of anti-Semitism and incitement against Jews.” [JAC: As you see above, the post hasn’t been removed.]

The blog, initially titled “’Arsenic’ The poison, which a Jewish woman put in the food of the Prophet, peace be upon him,’” has been live on The Huffington Post’s Arabic language web site since it was first published on Nov. 29. It claims that a Jewish woman used arsenic to poison the Prophet Mohammed and includes other offensive anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.

After the ADL complained, the title was changed to “Did the Prophet Die From Being Poisoned With Arsenic?”, but the content of the post wasn’t changed.

In another issue, Mediaite reports that after singer George Michael died, the Arabic PuffHo headline noted that he was “addicted to drugs with homosexual tendencies.” This did not go unnoticed by Arabic-speaking readers, nor the different headline in the English notice of Michael’s death.




I’m not sure what’s going on here, and it’s entirely possible that the editorship of this site is non-overlapping, but still, HuffPo is a brand, and when this stuff is called to their attention, maybe they should do something about it. HuffPo, it seems, is engaging in the same sort of anti-Semitic nonsense that’s promulgated by the private and state media of Middle Eastern countries.

h/t: Tom


  1. Heather Hastie
    Posted January 16, 2017 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    Didn’t you know? It’s okay to be anti-Semitic and homophobic when you’re Muslim. It’s just their culture. Expect an article celebrating FGM as a feminist statement next.

  2. Diana MacPherson
    Posted January 16, 2017 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    Damn gay drugs with their homosexual tendencies.

    • Posted January 16, 2017 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

      Someone else who read it that way. . . 🙂

      • friendlypig
        Posted January 17, 2017 at 9:22 am | Permalink

        That’s what it says!

        • Mike
          Posted January 18, 2017 at 9:06 am | Permalink


    • Ken Kukec
      Posted January 16, 2017 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, which drugs have homosexual tendencies?

      (Asking on behalf of a friend.)

      • HaggisForBrains
        Posted January 17, 2017 at 5:36 am | Permalink

        (Asking on behalf of a friend.)


  3. Jenny Haniver
    Posted January 16, 2017 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Of course, homosexuals and trans people have been around in that part of the world since time immemorial — millennia, and it’s really hypocritical to pretend otherwise. Some years ago, Everett Rowson, an old pal o’ mine, published a most interesting paper some years ago, “The Effeminates of Early Medina”, and some were companions of the Prophet.

    Is somebody going to come and chop my head off for bringing this up?

    • Jenny Haniver
      Posted January 16, 2017 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

      Wish I’d proofread carefully before submitting

  4. Posted January 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    It’s not clear that, with the HuffPo, the left hand knows what the right hand is doing.

    I suspect its left arm has twisted itself so far round its back that it now has two right-hands.

  5. Sshort
    Posted January 16, 2017 at 12:41 pm | Permalink


    so… the jews killed Mohammed? Never heard that one.

    First Jesus…then Mohammed. I guess we’ll be hearing about Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard any day now.

    • Tom (not H/T Tom)
      Posted January 16, 2017 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

      Not only Jewish but a woman and so double damned!
      No doubt this miscreant hid her identity behind a veil so that god could not see the threat and warn the prophet
      What cunning!

      • Sshort
        Posted January 16, 2017 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

        But of course! And would be going too far in suspecting the assasin had homosexual tendencies? It’s a trifecta!

      • dallos
        Posted January 17, 2017 at 2:00 am | Permalink

        Fortunately not a lesbian.

    • Posted January 16, 2017 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

      I hope Buddhists and Zoroastrians won’t get any ideas.

  6. Posted January 16, 2017 at 12:47 pm | Permalink


  7. Posted January 16, 2017 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    Homosexual Tendencies would be a great name for an Eighties tribute band.

    • Ken Phelps
      Posted January 16, 2017 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

      HuffPo would be a great name for a wind instrument in a marching band. I leave it to the reader to imagine where it would attach to the musician.

  8. Scott H
    Posted January 16, 2017 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    I find it interesting that today you posted 2 articles regarding free speech. One was against the regressive left blocking a speech at a public university. The other is a post against the publishing of an anti-Semitic post in Huffpo. In one post you say that offending views should be allowed to be expressed and people are free to protest peacefully, but to not interfere. In this post you say that Huffpo should not give a platform to anti-Semitism. Seems contradictory.

    • kps
      Posted January 16, 2017 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

      Free speech means allowing distasteful views to be expressed. *Huffington Post* should be allowed to publish their disapproval of Jews and homosexuals, and others should be allowed to call them on it.

      • Scott H
        Posted January 16, 2017 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

        The students called on the school to not allow a speaker they disagreed with. Professor Ceiling Cat called on Huffpo to not print an idea that he didn’t agree with. He has a problem with the “Regressive Left” calling on schools to not allow speech that students find objectionable. He has no problem asking Huffpo to stop publishing ideas that he finds objectionable. Where is the logic?

        • T
          Posted January 16, 2017 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

          I think if some ‘hacker’ group shut down the HuffPo’s site because they believed it promotes “hate speech”, then the two cases would be comparable.

          It seems to me that only the UC Davis story is explicitly about free speech per se. Both stories raise different questions in my view.

        • Mark Sturtevant
          Posted January 16, 2017 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

          Calling on X to stop expression of Y is one thing. That’s pretty mild, and also is in the range of free speech. But that is not the same thing as forming a large and increasingly agitated protest, blocking access, and generally creating enough of a disturbance that an event is cancelled for concern of public safety.
          You see things as similar but they are not.

          • Scott H
            Posted January 16, 2017 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

            This is nearly a straw man argument. The professor has consistently decried how students are shutting down speakers that have views they don’t like. In fact, less than a month ago, he said that a petition calling for the same Milo to not speak at CU Boulder was infringing on Milo’s right to free speech and that students trying to deny his right didn’t know what free speech was. There was no violent protests, just a petition. In 2014 he wrote about Brandeis withdrawing an honorary degree for Ayaan Hirsi Ali due to “political correctness” and the squalling of muslims–“I am ashamed that my fellow liberals, who prize freedom of speech and the right to dissent, nevertheless suppress that freedom by bowing to Muslim pressure”. No violence here either.

            So yes these are examples of calling on X to stop expression of Y in a nonviolent way that are frowned upon, while at the same time calling on Huffpo to stop publishing anti-Semitic tracts. This is clearly inconsistent.

    • Posted January 17, 2017 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

      Neither Jerry nor anyone else is calling for the closing down of HuffPo. The central issue here is the question of responsible vs. irresponsible reporting of the media. Were an individual being censored by the media that would be irresponsible but not
      egregious since that individual has many other venues for publishing his/her views. No publication or media outlet is compelled to publish anything that anyone writes. Bad writers, plagiarists, slanderers, etc. are
      often not published or banned for good reason. The fact is that this kind of slanderous and vicious anti Semitic publication is no worse than any of the other
      trivial drivel and nonsense published by HuffPo. There are far worse blogs, such as
      mondoweiss, one of many (nearly all on the right, plus Front Page on the right). Luckily most of these are read by their own
      ideological idiots so they really function as a kind of internet cheering squad. Most of us agree with Jerry about the quite pathetic HuffPo, but we do not use it as our major source of information. In fact it is very important to read all sources, left to right, to sort out what is loony and what isn’t. On the left it is essentially 100% lunatic. On the right it is about 99% because there are trustworthy reputable analyzers and scholars who tell the truth about Islam, such as Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, IPT, Middle East Forum, and of course equally reputable and important critics and scholars such as Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan and abroad
      Nick Cohen and Douglas Murray (left and right respectively). Critical thinkers can easily distinguish fact from fiction.

      • Scott H
        Posted January 17, 2017 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

        Sigh. This is like debating theists–avoid the contradiction and change the subject.

        1. Bad==students who demand that someone should not be given a platform to speak at their school. They are being anti-liberal, anti-free speech, and censoring views. They should be exposed to ideas that challenge them and maybe make them uncomfortable as a way to grow and not be sheltered.

        2. Good==professor (emeritus) calling on a website not to publish views that he doesn’t agree with. This is liberal, pro-free speech, and not censoring.

        This is not about violence, this is not about closing down a website (the students aren’t asking to close their school either). This is not about other sources of information available. This is about a group/person asking for a viewpoint not to be expressed. In one case it is derided and another it is supported. Where is the logic?

        • Posted January 18, 2017 at 5:07 am | Permalink

          Scott H’s logic seems to me unanswerable. If we agree with free speech we can’t pick and choose; no-platforming at universities does not, on the face of it, appear to be different in any relevant sense from requiring Huffpo not to publish articles. It seems to me there are three possible courses if one one wants to remain consistent: 1) Be against students trying to prevent expression of views they disagree with and also be against trying to suppress Huffpo’s anti-Semitic drivel; 2) Say that students have a right to prevent expression of views they disagree with and also say we have a right to try to suppress Huffpo’s anti-Semitic drivel; or 3) Find some relevant sense in which Huffpo’s anti-Semitic drivel is worse – more pernicious, more likely to incite violence – than the views students wish to prevent expression of. And maybe 3) is possible, but no one here has done it yet.

  9. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted January 16, 2017 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    The first tweet seems to have a serious grammar error, unless the writer is proud that the drugs they take are heterosexual.

  10. Helen Hollis
    Posted January 16, 2017 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

    Let it be, let it be.
    It is time for us and if not us who? And if not now when?

  11. Helen Hollis
    Posted January 16, 2017 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    Hoping all of us are thinking on this day, and what it means for all of us. Regardless of what names some states have called it for years until now.

  12. Ray Leonard
    Posted January 17, 2017 at 6:50 am | Permalink

    Dang! First dey killed Jebus and then that Mohammed feller. Wouldn’t be surprised iffen they ain’t aiming to take over the whole world.

  13. Posted January 17, 2017 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    “nearly all on the LEFT” is the correct statement.

%d bloggers like this: