Discord among counter-jihadists: a call for unity

Many, many times here at Jihad Watch I have stressed the need for those who are resisting the global jihad and Islamic supremacism to stick together -- or at least not to let jihadists, their agents, and/or their useful idiots (or even their own narrow self-interest or what they perceive as such) set them against other people who should be allies in our common fight for survival. At the risk of redundancy or belaboring the obvious, I will repeat here what I pointed out then about such “friendly fire attacks”:

There is a dispiriting number of self-described counter-jihad activists who spend more time sniping at other counter-jihadists instead of actually doing something constructive to fight the jihad. There are those who know all about how it can all be done better and more effectively, but never quite manage to get off their couch and prove it. There are those who sling around reckless and false charges against others, and those who style themselves as junior Machiavellis, maneuvering publicly and privately, in ways more or less transparent, to muscle out those they apparently regard as competition.

I find all this distasteful and wrongheaded, and do not participate, but am for whatever reason often the recipient of it.

This has particular reference to a dispute that opened up several weeks ago regarding the scholar Srdja Trifkovic, author of The Sword of the Prophet and many other fine books. Trifkovic was barred from Canada on false accusations of being a genocide denier and of having been a senior official in the Bosnian Serb government during the Balkan wars of the 1990s. These false accusations were initiated by a circle of Bosnian Muslims who are purveying militant anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian jihad, and pro-Mahmoud “I am proud to be a Holocaust denier” Ahmadinejad propaganda.

When I posted an item on Jihad Watch pointing out how “the ‘hate speech’ weapon is increasingly used by the thuggish Leftist/Islamic supremacist axis to silence its opponents,” Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, a young man who has since then exposed himself as a full-bore agent provocateur, writing in the Leftist dhimmi blog Harry's Place to denounce me and other "right-wing bloggers" for all sorts of transgressions (distorted and fabricated, of course) against the sainted Obama and obsessively elsewhere in what has become an ongoing campaign, saw an opportunity to launch an offensive against both me and Trifkovic.

That initiative had two immediate goals: first, to preserve in pristine form the lurid narrative of one-sided Muslim victimization in the Balkans. (Where are Muslims not the victims of the kuffar, rather than the perpetrators?) That issue has been dealt with masterfully by Andy Wilcoxson. The second – facilitated by the provocateur’s presenting to me a passage of Trifkovic’s writing taken out of context (genuinely, not the way Islamic supremacists are forever claiming is being done to the Qur'an by non-Muslims) and accordingly subject to misinterpretation as antisemitic – has been analyzed in depth by the relentless, indefatigable Julia Gorin:

Trifkovic concerns himself with Jewish and Israeli survival. That's more than can be said of other paleocons, too many of whom – not unlike too many liberals – have convinced themselves that Jews are the problem with jihad, and let the Muslims off the hook, often defending them. Unhindered by such biased mental blocks, Trifkovic does not have it in for Israel, as his maligned symposium contribution and a lifetime of work make clear.

Make no mistake. These two seemingly unrelated issues are closely linked: false Muslim claims of victimization (whether in the Balkans or in Gaza) and false accusations of “hate speech” (whether anti-Semitism or “Islamophobia”). They both spring from the same font, and have the same goal.

The key word is survival – survival in the face of efforts to blame the victims of jihad, not the jihadists. This means the physical survival of those fighting against jihad in their homelands: Jews in Israel; Christians in the Balkans, the Philippines, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia and elsewhere; Hindus in Kashmir; Bahais in Iran; Buddhists in southern Thailand; and so on. It means survival of our freedoms against efforts to muzzle and defame those who are telling the truth about Islam, jihad, Sharia, dhimmitude, the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and Muhammad. It means survival of persecuted non-Muslims in places too numerous to name, and whose only recourse in many cases is emigration.

Regarding Trifkovic, I value him as an ally in a common struggle. Like me, he is dedicated to the survival of those fighting against the jihad, both for our freedoms here at home (not to mention Canadastan) and globally, including Israel. We don’t have to agree on everything -- pace the Leftists who try to convince the gullible that any counter-jihadist who ever stood in the same room with another counter-jihadist must necessarily and wholeheartedly agree with everything his momentary companion has ever said and approve of everything he has done. We still don't completely agree regarding his statements to which I initially objected, but we do agree on the primary goal of resisting jihad and Islamization. And I don’t think he is an antisemite or a “genocide denier." I respect his work on Islam and his stand for freedom -- and against the jihad in the Balkans and Israel. I regard the efforts by Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, whose pro-jihad (at least in the Balkans and probably elsewhere as well) sentiments are now clear, and others to frame him as such indistinguishable from the kind of smears and threats to which I am subjected constantly.

| 26 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

26 Comments

| Leave a comment

Hang together or hang separately.

Off Topic Off Topic
Hello gravenimage. I've been trying to corner you to clear up what I believe is a misunderstanding. Here is my post from the Sandhurst-Minaret thread.

On models and minarets (skinarets). I feel confident speaking on Sean's behalf. It wasn't sexual per se. We were just expressing our total and utter contempt for Islam.

Hang in there Robert. We appreciate all of the good and noble work you and others do. We also know the great risks involved in speaking the truth about the grotesque and barbaric ideology that is Islam. Thanks to all of you, the number of people awakening to the threat of Islam in general and jihad in particular increases daily and will serve western civilization well during this existential crisis. May God bless and protect all of you, your friends, your families, and all of the decent, charitable, and enlightened cultures in the world.

This post by Robert Spencer is hilarious, I must say. The paranoid tone serves as a great alternative to comedy TV.

'denounce me and other "right-wing bloggers" for all sorts of transgressions (distorted and fabricated, of course) against the sainted Obama'

Really? What 'distorted and fabricated' transgressions against 'the sainted Obama' (where have I ever described Obama as a 'saint', by the way?)?

Are you hoping, Robert, that no one will look at the article I wrote? Do you deny that you entertained as plausible the notion that Obama is a Muslim (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRlwauhgROM)? Do you deny that your colleague Pamela Geller derided Obama as a 'Mohammedan' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_9eo5HRow0&feature=player_embedded- around 1:50)? Do you deny that Ali Sina, a man whom you support, called for the electrocution of Obama for 'high treason'(http://news.jonzu.com/z_united-states_barack-hussein-obama-is-condemned-by-ali-sina.html)?

'The second – facilitated by the provocateur’s presenting to me a passage of Trifkovic’s writing taken out of context (genuinely, not the way Islamic supremacists are forever claiming is being done to the Qur'an by non-Muslims) and accordingly subject to misinterpretation as antisemitic'

First, I did not take any of Trifkovic's writings 'out of context'. I in fact gave you the link to the whole symposium. Nor was I the first to notice those anti-Semitic remarks:- it was Rebecca Bynum who originally put up a post about it at the New English Review. Why don't you explain to the readers what she and I are 'misinterpreting' that you are not?

'Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi, whose pro-jihad (at least in the Balkans and probably elsewhere as well) sentiments are now clear'

I guess that is why I wrote this article (http://hurryupharry.org/2011/03/22/the-islamization-of-chechnya/), right, Robert? No wonder Andrew Bostom called you the 'little King'.

Well first of all it seems to me that some people on Jihad Watch look on Christians who see Christianity as the right way and so superior to Talmudic Judeism as "anti semitic", in this case Mr.Trifcovic is an "anti semite" as am I or the great Martyr Daniel Sysoev who showed incredible courage in facing Islam but also often told that while God didnt break his covenant with the Jews, that the Jews broke the covenant and that any Jew can return to it only by returning to God through Christ. But neither he, nor me or Mr.Trifcovic want to attack the Jews in any way or to destroy Israel (I personaly support Israel strongly on solly rational and secular ground as should I believe any civilized person, I dont see were the Jewish settlers, who came to this area and bought land from the barbaric tribals that inhabited it and formed a majority in a territory and got a state there once the British left were wrong? If someone has a problem that Jewish settlers took posession of a tiny strip of land they should settle it with the greedy Arab tribals who sold the land to the Jews and not talking lies like "THE JEWS STOLE OUR LAND!!!!!") I dont see what my Christianity has to do with my support for Israel and I dont understand why I have to accsept modern Judeism as equal to Christianity to see that the Arabs and other Muslims who storm against Israel and Europe are a problem while Israel is not.

Hindus, Sikhs and Jews can speek freely on this site (and more broadly in what I have seen of the counter-Jihad movement) and all of them ocaisionaly attack Christianity, but Christians can only speak about some "Judeo-Christian" construct, not as Christians but as "Judeo-Christians". It seems to me as if even here Christians are juged by another standarts then members of other faiths, still Christianity is concidered guilty untill proven innocent, while other religions are protected by political correctness (even if Islam is thankfully excluded from it). Such a strategy will alienate many Orthodox Christians from you (and maybe others too, but I cant speak for them). I would advise to remember that it is not necesary for an alliance that all sides agree on all things and like each other compleetly, but that they see the enemy as the greater threat then each other...... When the Roman and the Persian empire, who were mortal enemys for around 700 years saw what a huge threat is arising in Islam, they were forced to become allies, while I am sure that they still didnt agree on about all things but one......Islam must be stopped before it destroyes everything bouth societys concidered valuable for them (even if this values were very different)

The luxury to disagree about various elements of religious belief will disappear totally if Islam takes over. So, be smart; defeat Islam first, then argue all you like.

Nicely and well said, Scott.

Sean sums it up well, with "Hang together, or surely we will hang separately"

Robert, you have observed the situation well, and commented well. And we appreciate the dependable steady course you steer, without personal detractions to you, leading to vendetta's. Leave the low road, as you do, to the muslims and the mafia, where it is their pre-ordained lot.

It is a disgusting reality that when anyone does well, and is admired, in any endeavor, others may, as is happening, develop weaknesses of character, of the holier than thou, big ego problems sort of character flaws, and lose sight of the larger end goal, and weaken their cause, by becoming disturbed with where others in the race are.

These detractors, these self-imagined, self-absorbed, "giant strutting peacocks", are losing sight of the goal, sadly. Hopefully, at least some, will eventually regain their original vision!

Just as there are many in the position of statesmen, lacking the character to be statesmen, there are some in the anti-jihad role, who lack the character to keep that anti-jihad goal uppermost in priority.

We are not all in the struggle to be in lockstep, in pace or exact steps, and will reach the good end, each at our own paces, and paths, and mostly, together!

Alas, some of the problems regarding the disunity DO stem from problems related to the degree with which some people want to claim moral supremacy, either from a religious point of view or from the atheist point of view, I believe. I have regularly noticed the chasm between both. Sometimes discussions on JW start to degenerate to the point where atheists and religious individuals polarize the discussion with knives drawn. Or at least sometimes there seems to be an undercurrent of latent bilateral distrust.

As an atheist I have drawn the conclusion ages ago that Christianity can in no way be compared to Islam, which is rife with explicit justifications for doing harm to society in general. Although the Bible is full of inconsistencies, it is quite clear to me that no Christian would ever find a coherent discourse in it to justify waging perpetual war on others or to systematically infringe on people's rights. Which is indeed totally opposite to Islam, seeing as any muslim initiated into islamic doctrine knows very well that the peaceful verses of the Quran, having been abrogated, have absolutely no bearing on how he should behave.

The mere fact that Christians have been interpreting and reinterpreting the Bible all throughout history has laid foundation to religious factionalization within Christianity, which has gradually led to pluralism and even secularism in the West. Because no Christian can be absolutely sure what the Bible has to 'say for itself'. We should celebrate pluralism within the community of Islam critics, whether Christian, atheist,Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist,...etc.

Therefore, whether the Bible makes absolute sense or not would be completely academic to me, and still it gets quite baffling to find that some commenters on JW try to turn the whole Bible inside out to prove to one another that it would be indeed on all accounts morally right, whatever the subject of the day might be, it can be proved and one can find the necessary quotes, it seems. Now, in all honesty, it is not up to me to meddle with religious exegesis (or whatever one likes to call it), and I couldn't possibly mind that Christians might have a debate among themselves based on how the Bible might be interpreted with regards to some issues we find relevant. That's none of my concern.

Alas, I have regularly found that some people want to up the ante by bashing atheists around the head with Bible quotes, in order to seemingly prove that none other than Christianity has a final say on what is moral and just and what isn't. Or even vice versa: atheists who wantonly meddle in such a debate to try and destabilize Christians' self-esteem. Now I think that such a thing in many cases is highly divisive, has a tendency of polarizing a debate and simply is uncalled for in any case, regardless of who instigates it. Of course, we are all different as individuals, and there is nothing wrong with ideological pluralism, as long as we respect each other's views.

Now, the point I am trying to make is this. In my honest opinion, there can be absolutely no question that claiming moral superiority for oneself is the wrong way of going about things. When people for instance want to support the view more or less 'that the Jews broke the covenant and that any Jew can return to it only by returning to God through Christ' then it is quite clear to me that the institutionalized arrogance of the Vatican and such still carries quite a lot of clout in the minds of some Christians today. And I can only wonder why some Christians today still feel the need to cling to such views, given the fact that it has proved detrimental to the development of Europe throughout its history, for example. Why should some Christians still feel the implicit need to look down on Jews today just because some clerical authority endorses such a view ? How on earth is such a thing helpful in any way ? We can invite people to join such debates, but all in all, some of us do this with a superior knowledge in the back of their minds, not having the self-criticism to acknowledge how deprecating this would be with regards to the belief system others adhere to ? How are we supposed to unify people if some groups would be reluctant to join when they might entertain the a priori assumption they could be looked down upon and possibly scoffed by any other group ?

In my mind, any atheist or Christian that vehemently wants to claim such superiority could only destroy a unified movement from within. Why factionalize the debate, reducing critics of Islam to peculiar separate groups, alienated from one another, barking at trees ?

None of what we are talking about on JW is actually about this or that group trying to claim the moral high ground, it is about the things we have in common with regards to Islam: making damn sure humane values will prevail for all of us who are faced with the self-aggrandizing doctrine of Islam, claiming moral superiority, that will strike at the heart of our prosperity and wants to spoon feed our societies with numbing uniformity !

Correct, Buraq!

Also, an additional point to my earlier comments, is that no one else speaks for me unless I choose so.

I hope in this free West, most people will learn to not abdicate, nor abrogate their own right to make their own decisions, and speak for themselves, also. And to have confidence in themselves to learn how to and actually do go after the methods to find the truth of any or most matters before them.

Unfortunately, on that point, if most muslims were to learn to think for themselves, critically and logically, and to be educated in the full truths of life and sciences, there would be no struggle, There would be no muslims nor islam, for it would be found as is so true, to be 100% wanting, for a reason to exist!

I make the decision as to my agreement and how much I agree, with any expert, and my affinity with them, regarding truths and opinions. I have learned through the years that those possessing especially advanced degrees, including Ph.D., and M.D. quite often possess ego driven pomposities, and are especially among those, whose remarks cannot be relied upon, as well for those bearing honors such as the Noble prize, (read here a certain Hussein!)

In the field of medicine, I have found many mistakes of perilous fact with medical specialists, that were or could have been deadly, and took appropriate corrective action. I have personally found some others who have done the same. There are whole books written by M.D.s themselves, and medical studies, on that subject, as well.

Likewise, there exist many seriously flawed or outright fraudulent degreed experts, who have strange axes to grind for a wide and weird variety of reasons. Other professional fields are as bad as medicine or worse!

It is always necessary in this world of mass production flawed education and existence, to be careful and trust less, and learn and research for yourself more. Sometimes it is more than just reputations being threatened, it is your, and/or others life that is on the line of other's mistakes of knowledge, judgement, or prejudice.

Well you surly believe that religions are illusianory and that a person who is a believer is delusional and wasting his or her time.... You believe in the supperiority of reason over religion (especialy Christianity since you spoke about no other religion here). I personaly believe that most large religions have the messege of being THE TRUTH and so claim some sort of supperiority over others who cant be THE TRUTH at the same time.....

And I dont say that people should fight about their diffrences when they gather to fight a common enemy but that
people might fight this battle for diffrent reasons, if you want to exclude all Christians who dont acknologue Judeism (Sikhism, Hinduism.....) as THE TRUTH (while for some strange reason remain Christians) from your coalition a lot of people will turn their back on you and if you spit on the Vatican (or the Orthodox Church) for being "arrogant" in some theologic matters, I may just ask exactly what type of Christian do you want in the "Counter Jihad alliance"?
Some who sell what the precieve as THE TRUTH just for being nice? Isnt that the same the Muslims wanted since they first attacked Christianity?

As a matter of fact, I am not excluding anyone. Claiming THE truth above all others, from whatever perspective, has consistently wreaked havoc on society throughout the ages and still has the ability to do so today. That is what I am saying. If you want to claim your own brand of truth from your own interpretation of Christianity, then I suggest you should remind yourself of Europe's 16th century Reformation, that laid foundation to some reformist figureheads such as Luther or Calvin to claim their own type of moral supremacy. Now, reactionary Catholicism in those days prescribed the vehement persecution of protestants in order to preserve Catholic unity, which led to protestants fleeing their home countries. Conversely, Anglicans for instance persecuted the English Catholic clergy and all "papal elements" in English society, based on The Act of Supremacy, that proclaimed Henry VIII and every subsequent British head of state as ""the only supreme head on earth of the Church in England", in fact giving impetus to the persecution of Catholic priests, mirroring the Catholic persecution of protestants on the continent.

Calvinists from the Low Countries moved to the Netherlands, where they not only got embroiled in protestant vs. catholic enmity, but also started to factionalize along religious and political divisions, often paired with violence. Of course, these are just two examples of what claiming the moral high ground can lead to, and many of these issues didn't get resolved until the mid to late 19th century, when the rule of law within Europe became encapsulated within the secular framework that provides equality before the law for all citizens, irrespective of belief, to guard them from state-supported violence on religious grounds. Just to show you that secularization would be necessary to have people refrain from jumping at each other's throats all the time, based on ideological differences. And that is exactly why we needed the Separation of Church and State in the first place.

However, some "traditions" have ingrained themselves firmly in the minds of those who claim to have exclusive access to the truth. In July 2007, Protestant churches reacted with dismay to a new declaration approved by Pope Benedict XVI insisting they were mere "ecclesial communities" and their ministers effectively phonies with no right to give communion. Coming just four days after the reinstatement of the Latin mass, the document left no doubt about the Pope's eagerness to back traditional Roman Catholic practices and attitudes, even at the expense of causing offence. When he was just Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he headed the Vatican "ministry" for doctrine. A commentary attached to the 2000 document, Dominus Iesus, added "It is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to Protestant communities, given that they do not accept the theological notion of the Church in the Catholic sense and that they lack elements considered essential to the Catholic Church.'

The most striking thing there is the fact that within this institutionalized way of 'reasoning', nothing has really changed within the Vatican since pre-reformation days. The pope can assume the role of ultimate central authority on any form of Christianity, claiming there is only the one, and therefore the official view today would still be that protestants are erring with regards to the rightful path to be followed AND thus he can maintain the baloney that all other Christians are sheep that have to be somehow returned to the flock. Basically, the institutionalized view is therefore a pre-reformation view and regards the claim to moral supremacy as more important than trying to build bridges among Christian denominations themselves !!! Now this is basically demeaning enough for just about any other Christian, given what this really implies, but the pope has actually decided to act out on his claims, trying to prove his point by coaxing Anglican bishops to return to the Catholic faith on his visit to the UK, which angered many people there.

So I am just sitting there watching all of this, and then I can't help thinking 'Would most Christians on this planet be reasonable people and let this issue go, or would they rather do the same as the pope by claiming they are the genuine article and subsequently go implicitly or actively insulting others, who claim to be good Christians themselves, such as calvinists, presbyterians, anglicans, lutherans or whatever ? For what it's worth, I do tend to believe that most Christians wouldn't find cause to do such a thing, realizing it is totally uncalled for in this day and age.

The only thing I am saying is that mankind has always been factionalized on a whole array of matters, the outcome of that can have negative implications such as mentioned above. However, if there is anything positive to be learned from it, than it would be that it has gradually led to pluralism in the West.

The main issue is this: why on earth is it so damn difficult for people to gather round the issues they have in common ? To do away with the ideological nitpicky stuff that stands in our way of achieving what we want to ? Why do WE have to be factionalized on religious/ideological grounds and making a point of scoffing each other over moral purity ?

Mankind has always been factionalized, such is our history. If we want to take our responsibility, we should start concentrating on what unites us.

so Buraq has a point when he says 'The luxury to disagree about various elements of religious belief will disappear totally if Islam takes over. So, be smart; defeat Islam first, then argue all you like.'

Unity would be great! So, Robert, please see if you and Andrew Bostom and Debbie Schlussel can patch things up! It breaks my heart to see fighting between intellectual heroes of mine!

Well thats one multicultural polemic you wrote here, because if one takes your position to its logical conclusion then it would be the following: Differences are bad (not just people who comit violence to manifest their TRUTH) because they split humanity, so people have to put aside what devides them and concentrate on what unites them (so actualy water down all differences so that to not offend anyone). So why hault at Christianity, why not unite all religions into a harmonic "something" were no one can claim his ideas as right and that of the others as wrong because it can lead to conflict......
And why stop with religions, why not do the same with political and sientific views, why not forbid the followers of democracy and free market to say their ideas are better then Autocracy and slavery? It is offensive and leads to conflict after all.....? Why is it that in a time were "diversity" is praised in all spheres of life its religions that have to unite and seek some "common ground" (which often just dont exists), giving up core aspects of their beliefs......?

I fear you as an atheist have it difficult to understand what it is to BELIEVE, a Christian cant be luckwarm in his faith, he IS ORDERED by whoum he percives as GOD INCARNATE to follow THE TRUTH and only it, most of the greatest Christian minds were of the opinion that this TRUTH is confirmeble by logic and sience and has to be accsepted by reason before believed (so its not to by mistaken as "blind faith"), for a believer (at least for a Christian) his TRUTH is as right as is a basic physical law for a sientist and it is irrational for him if you want to force him to accsept lets say that the Earth is flat just to not to offend thous who believe in it, he either will have to be convinced by what he percieves as good arguments thous now seing a flat Earth as the truth and denouncing a round Earth as false, or he wont believe it.....
What you want is stranger still.....you want that the sientist believes in BOUTH a round and a flat Earth (so basicly dont care) so that there is no conflict and devision. For me the FACT that Christ is God is as strong as the FACT that the Earth is spherical........I cant just say the Judeists or Hindus, or Muslims are equaly right because I would be lying (from my perspective).....

As about "defeat Islam first, then argue all you like.", I never said anything against it actualy in my first post I wrote: " I would advise to remember that it is not necesary for an alliance that all sides agree on all things and like each other compleetly, but that they see the enemy as the greater threat then each other.....When the Roman and the Persian empire, who were mortal enemys for around 700 years saw what a huge threat is arising in Islam, they were forced to become allies, while I am sure that they still didnt agree on about all things but one......Islam must be stopped before it destroyes everything bouth societys concidered valuable for them (even if this values were very different)" So I can fight Islams ounslaught to protect (among other things) my "replacement Theology" togather with Jews who can protect their view that Jesus Christ was the bastard of a Roman soldier..... in face of a greater threat. Its not me who is against the position of an alliance of all people who opose Islam, but people here who are quickly to accuse others (and even Mr.Spencer himself) of the "sin" of "replacement theology" thus excluding 90% of Christianity from this alliance.....

Hello Robert:
I wrote this on the Washington D.C. thread and wonder if there is something here you might be interested in picking up.
"This man received 23 years in prison. As I understand it, the time in prison is meant to be punishment for crimes but also an opportunity for rehabilitation. I am not suggesting that they should not have access to the Cur'an but would it be too much to ask that the Cur'an that they receive be excised of all hateful and violent verses in the interest of rehabilitation?
This would involve work, so maybe Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf could do it as proof that he really is interested in outreach and peaceful co-existence. I can certainly see a continuing and great need for such a pacified Cur'an among the burgeoning muslim prison population. After all, these criminals are a captive audience so to speak.

I am really beginning to like this idea of a pacified Cur'an. It would fit in perfectly with the lib/left PCMC orientation so they would have to agree unless they are rank hypocrites. After Faisal writes it, it should be reviewed by Shirk, yourself, and Geller. Would the Cur'an then be a thinner book? Perhaps, but if we can get the Cur'an to be complementary to the US constitution who could disagree with that?
If muslims say they want the bible to be treated likewise for prison populations, I would agree."

While I'd be the first to admit that there's no faster way to clear a room in the "west" then let slip that you are an evangelical christian, the fact is, if we are to defeat islam, christians of all persuasions must ban together with each other and also along with our brothers and sisters of the jewish faith. Together we must convince the atheists and liberals among us that islam endangers them as well (perhaps more than most).

Remember: Christianity and Judaism is borne of light; islam is borne of darkness. The classic battle is the light against the darkness. This is most decidedly a religious battle and until it is recognized as such winning is not an option.

"Discord among counter-jihadists: a call for unity"

Hear, hear! ...thank you, Robert :)

I mayu have mistakenly pressed something which cut me off

I meant to finish by saying that Americans must fight for the defeat of their own Government in its war along with and on behalf of the Jihad in Libya against Muammar gadhafi

i apologise to readers. I lost my initial post.

My main point is that there is an Alliance between the forces of capitalist imperialism and Islamic Jihad in the world today which is becoming ever more obvious

On the isue of Libya, a vital issue, it is not enough to just expose the Jihadist intentions of the opposition to Muammar Gadhafi and to his political tendency

It is necessary to be explicit, to take sides, to take the side of the Gadhafi Government, against Imperialism AND the Jihad

And to call explicitely for the victory of Gadhafi over these enemies who compose the "Empire Sharia Alliance" a term which I made up but which i think does fit the situation and our experiences of the situation and which has got great implication for Israel and for Jews.

The historical facts remain. To go accusing me of propagating some type of moral universalism is clearly ridiculous, when considering the fact that in the past, religious denominations let their proselytizing drive take the upper hand with the clear intent of establishing moral universalism in the first place, to the detriment of human rights issues and pluralism. Also remaining is the fact that for some adherents of different religious faiths this mentality carries over well into the 21st century and trespassing onto somebody else's 'moral territory' seems to take precedence over issues regarding a specific subject we do tend to see eye to eye to. In other words, being perpetually at loggerheads with one another over religious differences diverts attention away from the shared issues with regards to Islam many people on the planet feel are pivotal. With regards to what we are faced with, the ideological differences between people are interfering with our unity on specific matters, as long as we think it necessary to impose the moral righteousness of our own views concerning general ethical issues upon all others, from whatever point of view. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the skewed version of multicultural uniformity propagated by PC elites, but everything to do with the notion of live and let live.

Now let's hypothesize and imagine for instance what would happen if the vast majority of Hindus or Buddhists would assume such moral universalism (or even an isolationist point of view)and claim things like: "Why are these Christians bothering us with their anti-Islamic discourse ? After all, we Hindus know better than anyone else, seeing as we have first hand experience on the subcontinent with Islamism, and we're getting pretty tired of those Christians claiming they know it all, when in fact, they don't know even half of it."
So there you have it. What would a Christian do in such a case ? Compare notes with Hindus and Buddhists on the subject of Islam, to draw the joint conclusion that we have very much in common ? Or would he go down the same traditional path, Bible-quoting ad nauseam in order to establish the moral superiority of Christianity first as a prerequisite for Hindus to understand the problem at hand, when in fact they already have from their own viewpoint ? It's quite clear to me what most Christians would do in this day and age, rather than claim the moral high ground like during the 16th century. What good would such a thing do in any case, unless one thinks alienating other people is a good thing ? I think any Christian trying to stoop to such a level will be hard-pressed to find a receptive audience among Hindus/Buddhists/Jews...et al., achieving exactly the opposite of the unity the community of Islam critics needs.

I would rather defend just about anyone who suffers from the onslaught of Islamic inequities, such as Arab Christians, adherents of the Bahai faith, Zoroastrians, Jews, ex-muslims...et al. without giving the preconceived ideological chasm between atheists and religious individuals any thought whatsoever, because I believe that would be the right thing to do, to emphasize respect for human rights first, rather than to press any brand of moral universalism on others from whatever perspective. Simply because that would be divisive, demeaning and would in no way serve the necessary unity in our movement. It is counterproductive. As long as people can't stop pointing the finger of Moral Supremacy at each other with regards to their general outlook on societal issues, we will never establish much unity on the specific issue of forging a cohesive movement.

Charles Martel, John Sobieski, St John of Capistrano,Once again everyone has missed the main group in opposition to Islamic jihad. That group is 'The Catholic Church' she has been fighting against them since 620 AD. Fighting on all of the fronts-She is the only one that has stopped them from controlling Europe (Charles Martel, John Sobieski, St John of Capistrano,) and the Mediterranean sea. (Battle of Lepanto). Furthermore the only One that can stop them-If they are to be stopped. So read your history- .

John Sobieski Upon reaching Vienna, Sobieski had planned to attack on 13 September, but with the Turkish close to breaching the walls he ordered a full attack on 11- 12 September. At 04:00 the united army of about 81,000 men attacked a Turkish force of about 130,000 men. At about five o'clock in the afternoon, after observing the infantry battle from the hilltop, Sobieski led Polish husaria cavalry along with Austrians and Germans into a massive charge down the hillside. Soon, the Turkish battle line was broken and the Ottoman forces scattered in confusion. At 17:30 Sobieski entered the deserted tent of Kara Mustafa and the battle of Vienna ended.


Oh by the way- The Muslims used the divide and conquer method to defeat the Richest and most powerful empire the world has ever known The Byzantines. They separated them from their base-'Rome'-Just as they have separated western Europe,The UK and the US. In the meantime The Muslims are getting more press than a Chinese laundry-While The Story of The Catholic Church and the fight for Christianity-is still waiting to be told

I don't know if you were aware of this but Debbie Schlussel has been visiting other anti-Islam web sites and tracking down those who post comments and then she sends them harassing emails and messages on Facebook. This woman may have bouts of jealousy with Mr. Spencer, and according to her Facebook messages to me, she simply hates Pamela Geller but for her to go after people like me for posting a comment on a web site she doesn't like is a bit too much. Here is a brief sample:

Debbie Schlussel November 17 at 9:25pm Report
Nope, I don't read your site. Sorry. I saw that she ripped off, word for word, something she stole from my site and saw that you posted a comment on her site. If you ask me to "get along" with those who steal from me and make it their business to try to bring me down, then you are incredibly moronic. Scamela and Slobbert Spencer have been contacting sites telling them not to post or link to my work. That's what you support. That's idiotic. Get a clue.

Debbie Schlussel November 17 at 9:28pm Report
BTW, if you really think Scamela is fighting Islamization of America than you really, really have been snowed. She's fought nothing but to have the size of her $10 million plus bank account and ego enlarged. That's it. In fact, she is a fraud who embraced Muslim honor-killers and who says she isn't opposed to mosques. She's a phony who made her money by using Muslim straw buyers she and her hubby paid off for car loan fraud scams. You embrace criminals.. If that's who you want passing the ammunition, it will detonate in your face.

Still you are seing your atheistic view as the right and rational one and the Christian view as the irrational one and as I said I have no problem with that as long as you hate the common enemy more then you hate me......(and as if there are no historic facts that show that an atheist regime can be more brutal in enforcing its ideas then any religion)
And why is it allways Christianity that created all evil and division and strife and why is it Christians who allways have to apologise for everything, do you think there was no inter sectarian violence and wars between Hindus or Budhists? You would be surprised then if you study their history.
If you only accsept allies who are ready to give the part of their own beliefs away only not to "offend" others you will not find many...... As for not concentrating on things that devide us but on the common enemy, here I completly agree and I have wroten about this in my 2 last posts, its not me but some other people who leash out against any Christian (EVEN MR.SPENCER HIMSELF!!!!) if they spot some "replacement theology", its they who alienate me from your movement. Do you stand for "pluralism" but are only accsepting religions who dont claim to posess some moral absolute??? (This means very few religions at all). I think its not me who creates division but thous who leash out on "replacement theology".
I actualy wanted to answer john vondra but will not do it because I am not here to argue with Catholics..... I will just say that the siege of Vienna was broken by an

But since you have so vehemently critizised the Vatican I have one question: If tomorrow the Pope will take an anti Islamic course in his policy and declare his whish to allie with all thous endangered by Islam (but without giving up the Catholic claim of superiority), will you join this alliance?

While I am surly not a specialist on American counter Jihadists, from what I saw of Debbie Schlussel, she seemed very irrational......

Discord among counter-jihadists: a call for unity
........................

**Absolutely**. Excellent article. I think presenting a unified front against Jihad is of the utmost importance.

Supremacism Islam stands a a threat to Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, animists, agnostics, and atheists. It also threatens conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and independents of all stripes. We cannot afford disunity against an ideology that would destroy *all* our freedoms.

Pokermutt wrote:

Off Topic Off Topic
Hello gravenimage. I've been trying to corner you to clear up what I believe is a misunderstanding. Here is my post from the Sandhurst-Minaret thread.

On models and minarets (skinarets). I feel confident speaking on Sean's behalf. It wasn't sexual per se. We were just expressing our total and utter contempt for Islam.
........................

No worries, Pokermutt. I assure I was *not offended*.

I figured you and Sean were having some fun with Islam and its ludicrous Muslim-supremacy symbols—and I was doing the same.

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.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
Crucified Again by Raymond IbrahimDavid LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter