• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

“When you challenge Islam, you are attacking multiculturalism”

Sep 4, 2014 12:49 am By Robert Spencer

Muslims Jews Torah scrollsIs Daniel Greenfield the most brilliant individual in America today? A strong case can be made.

“Moderate Islam Is Multiculturalism Misspelled,” by Daniel Greenfield, FrontPage Mag, September 2, 2014:

I have been searching for moderate Islam since September 11 and just like a lost sock in the dryer, it was in the last place I expected it to be.

There is no moderate Islam in the mosques or in Mecca. You won’t find it in the Koran or the Hadiths. If you want to find moderate Islam, browse the newspaper editorials after a terrorist attack or take a course on Islamic religion taught by a Unitarian Sociologist wearing fake native jewelry.

You can’t find a moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you can find it in countless network news specials, articles and books about the two homelands of their respective brands of Islam.

You won’t find the fabled land of moderate Muslims in the east. You won’t even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won’t find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam.

Moderate Islam isn’t what most Muslims believe. It’s what most liberals believe that Muslims believe.

The new multicultural theology of the West is moderate Islam. Moderate Islam is the perfect religion for a secular age since it isn’t a religion at all.

Take Islam, turn it inside out and you have moderate Islam. Take a Muslim who hasn’t been inside a mosque in a year, who can name the entire starting lineup of the San Diego Chargers, but can’t name Mohammed’s companions and you have a moderate Muslim. Or more accurately, a secular Muslim.

An early generation of Western leaders sought the affirmation of their national destinies in the divine. This generation of Western leaders seeks the affirmation of their secular liberalism in a moderate Islam.

Even if they have to make it up.

Without a moderate Islam the Socialist projects of Europe which depend on heavy immigration collapse. America’s War on Terror becomes the endless inescapable slog that the rise of ISIS has once again revealed it to be. Multiculturalism, post-nationalism and Third World Guiltism all implode.

Without moderate Muslims, nationalism returns, borders close and the right wins. That is what they fear.

If there is no moderate Islam, no moderate Mohammed, no moderate Allah, then the Socialist Kingdom of Heaven on Earth has to go in the rubbish bin. The grand coalitions in which LGBT activists and Islamists scream at Jews over Gaza aren’t the future; they’re the Weimar Republic on wheels.

Flash back to Obama in his tan suit wearily saying that he has no strategy for ISIS. The original plan was to capture Osama alive, give him a civilian trial, cut a deal with the moderate Taliban and announce the end of the War on Terror before the midterm elections.

So much for that.

Moderate Islam is a difficult faith. To believe in it you have to disregard over a thousand years of recorded history, theology, demographics and just about everything that predates 1965. You have to ignore the bearded men chopping off heads because they don’t represent the majority of Muslims.

Neither does Mohammed, who did his own fair share of headchopping.

The real Islam is a topic that non-Muslims of no faith who hold sacred only the platitudes of a post-everything society are eager to lecture on without knowing anything about it.

Their Islam is not the religion of Mohammed, the Koran, the Hadiths, the Caliphs or its practitioners in such places as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq or Indonesia. Their Islam is a religion that does not exist, but that they fervently believe must exist because without it their way of life is as doomed as the dodo.

They aren’t Muslims. They have no faith in Allah or the Koran. Instead they have faith in the goodness of an Islam that exists without resort to scriptures, theology or deity. This may seem strange to actual believers, but after all their own poor tattered scraps of Christianity or Judaism don’t bother paying too much attention to deities or scriptures except when it comes to cherry-picking quotes about tolerance.

Is it any wonder that they treat Islam the same way?

The true moderate Muslims are secular liberals of loosely Christian and Jewish persuasion who have invented and believe in a moderate Islam that doesn’t exist outside of their own heads. This secular Islam, which values all life, is dedicated to social justice and universal tolerance, is a counterpart of their own bastardized religions. And they are too afraid to wake up and realize that it doesn’t exist.

When American and European leaders insist that Islam has nothing to do with the latest Islamic atrocity, they are not referencing a religion practiced by Muslims, but an imaginary religion that they imagine Muslims must practice because the alternative is the end of everything that they believe in.

Their moderate Islam is light on the details, beyond standing for social justice, fighting Global Warming and supporting gay rights, because it is really multiculturalism wearing a fake beard. When a Western leader claims that the latest batch of Islamic terrorists don’t speak for Islam, he isn’t defending Muslims, he’s defending multiculturalism. He assumes that Muslims believe in multiculturalism because he does.

Moderate Islam is just multiculturalism misspelled. Its existence is a firm article of faith for those who believe in multiculturalism.

Dissuading a believer in moderate Muslims from his invented faith by citing the long trail of corpses or the hateful Hadiths that call for mass murder is futile because these are not the roots of his religion. He doesn’t know what a Hadith is nor does he care. As a social justice man in good standing, he attributes the violent track record of Islam to European colonialism and oppression.

He has never read the Koran. He has read a thousand articles about how Muslims are oppressed at the airport, in Gaza, in Burma and in Bugs Bunny cartoons. They are his new noble savages and he will not hear a word against them. Having colonized their identities in his imagination (despite the marked up copy of Edward Said’s Orientalism that he keeps by his bedside) he treats them as reflections of his ego.

When you say that moderate Muslims don’t exist, you are calling him a bad person. When you challenge Islam, you are attacking multiculturalism and he will call you a racist, regardless of the fact that Islam is as much of a race as Communism, Nazism or the Mickey Mouse Fan Club were races.

The moderate Muslim is an invention of the liberal academic, the secular theologian, the vapid politician and his shrill idiot cousin, the political activist. Like the money in the budgets that underpin their plans and the scientific evidence for Global Warming, he does not exist.

And it is not necessary that he should exist. It is only necessary that we have faith in his existence.

The degraded lefty descendants of Christians and Jews wait for a moderate Muslim messiah who will reconcile the impossibilities of their multicultural society by healing the conflicts between Islam and the West. Until then they find him, it necessary to believe, not in a divinity, but in the moderate Muslim.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Moderate Muslims Tagged With: featured


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Jay Boo says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 1:01 am

    Moderate Islam is like the outer skin of a snake

    This snake sheds its skin; yet its fangs still shine in crescent light.
    It comes not to embrace but to smother and bite.
    The Serpent of Satan is deaf to hideous screams.
    Islam is about submission.
    The Serpent may shed its dead skin, but it is still much the same within.
    Islam crawls in the shadows.
    Islam is not about God or compassion or mercy.

    Islam slithers out of death and deceit.

    • boakai ngombu says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 8:56 am

      to kill the snake cut off the head
      ban the Koran and snake will be dead

      • pdxnag says

        Sep 4, 2014 at 10:20 am

        Just like in any good versus evil drama one must understand and reject evil to define what is good. A ban is as pointless as banning thought. We can ban acts but not thoughts.

        Expression of loyalty to the inherently hostile and violent Islamic Ummah is quite enough for me to view as a wholly voluntary renunciation of citizenship in, e.g. , the U.S.A.; requiring that they voluntarily deport immediately. Islam’s supremacist commands leave no alternative that allows them to remain within the country.

        • nacazo says

          Sep 4, 2014 at 5:48 pm

          we should recognize the ISLAM-ic state as a sovereign nation. declare war on it. And for people that declare loyalty to IS that have not committed crimes (yet), strip them of citizenship and deport them to the nation to which they have declared loyalty (IS), even if you’re a natural born citizen (parachute drop them to their nation of chosen loyalty). For the ones that have committed crimes give them the punishment according to the crime.

      • Jay Boo says

        Sep 4, 2014 at 11:02 am

        Rather than ban the Koran it would be better to reveal it and mock its obvious evil buffoonery and its sociopathic clown author Muhammad until all the snakes slink away to hide in a corner with well-deserved shame for foolishly claiming to be a Muslim.

      • gravenimage says

        Sep 4, 2014 at 12:09 pm

        If we banned the Qur’an Muslims would not stop reading it.

        The only thing such a ban would accomplish would be to ensure that law-abiding Infidels would be incapable of learning what motivates Jihad.

        And it would make many Anti-Jihadists—including Robert Spencer and myself and many others here—into criminals for owning Qur’ans for research.

        • kikorikid says

          Sep 4, 2014 at 8:26 pm

          Daniel, Just most excellent statement on
          the “Jin” of Islam, so to speak, the Moderate.
          I say to people, friends, “There is only Islam” and
          realizing that sounds like a pitch for Salvation quickly
          try to explain the , Many Sects-ONE BOOK, characteristic
          of the Ummah. I tell them, a Jihadi is a guy, who, the day before a
          Moderate, decided to answer the Imams call to Jihad.
          But here you have said it all, better! Thanks Mucho!

  2. james chang says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 1:02 am

    I was 100% behind everything here except that…there’s scientific evidence (overwhelming, in fact) for global warming. It does discredit to the rest of the argument stating otherwise.

    • Islam_Macht_Frei says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 9:16 am

      Nods.

      • Kenneth T. Tellis says

        Sep 5, 2014 at 12:08 am

        Islam makes Home Fries!

    • St. Michael Defend Us says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 9:51 am

      THAT’s what you got out of the article?

    • Mirren10 says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 12:05 pm

      ”I was 100% behind everything here except that…there’s scientific evidence (overwhelming, in fact) for global warming. It does discredit to the rest of the argument stating otherwise”

      There is a **lot** of controversy over ‘global warming’. Google ‘global warming hoax’, and see. The below is just one example amongst many.

      It seems very strange to me that you would discredit Daniel Greenfield’s brilliant article, just because he doesn’t accept a contention that many scientists, equally, do not. Especially considering the article was not about global warming. Did you just want an excuse to discredit it ?

      Do you believe everything you’re told, because some scientists say it’s so ?

      http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html#

      • Muhammad Bear says

        Sep 4, 2014 at 12:11 pm

        There is zero evidence for global warming.

        No temperature increase now for 18 years. Every computer model has failed in its predictions. No hotspot over the equatorial troposphere as predicted. Earth Radiation Budget in equilibrium (Richard Lindzen). Water vapor acts as a net negative feedback and not a positive one etc.

    • kikorikid says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 8:40 pm

      Keep slick, oily, smarmy, Al-Jazeera Al out of this.
      “Global Warming” is the Omnibus of “Enviromentalism.”
      It is the First Position of the Environmental Fascist who,
      so much, want Control.
      You should feel conspicuous in that Daniel just described
      the clothes you are wearing. Everything from the soles
      of your shoes to the point of your head. Just for you, Islam comes ONLY to: Conquer, Submit, Convert, or Kill.

    • Lloyd Miller says

      Sep 20, 2014 at 9:19 pm

      No, global warming (climate change) is propaganda designed by the Rockefeller / UN / Big Oil / OPEC / Saudi camarilla to keep the price of oil high by keeping supply down. Supply and demand: remember that concept?

  3. Don McKellar says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 1:16 am

    Truly a superb piece of writing that encapsulates the surreal and unfathonable position the muslim apologists put themselves in, and from which they cannot break away to simply see things as they are.

    It is sad to see UK PM Cameron start to wake up and recognize, finally, that it is an ideology that has to be confronted and defeated, not a method (terror) or “social ills” as responsible — and yet still not be able to comprehend that it is HE and those like him who are creating an imagined warped form of Islam that doesn’t exist that they call Moderate Islam. He is stumbling around in the dark, found the light switch, but refuses to believe it is connected to the light bulb so he won’t turn it on.

    • Bronson says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 3:16 am

      Cameron is a piece of puffery. Don’t expect anything from him and you won’t be disappointed.

  4. Buraq says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 2:07 am

    I must say I feel jealous that I didn’t write this piece myself. It’s brilliant. Couldn’t have put it better myself.
    Should be required reading for every lefty clown on the planet!

    • Mark says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 8:22 am

      I wished that I had written it too. It expresses several ideas that have been floating around in my mind for some time. Also, it clarifies for me why so many otherwise sensible people seem to be suffering from some sort of blindness or delusion when they speak of islam. This is an ideology which thinks women are inferior to men, gays are evil, state and religion are inseparable and non-muslims should convert or die (or pay the poll tax) er … these ideas seem to be at odds with progressive, secular, post-modernist ones – aren’t they? Yet they continue to defend islam – now I have a satisfactory explanation as to why.

  5. Charles Blake says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 2:15 am

    Mohammad, who all Muslims follow, beheaded people, was intolerant of other people’s beliefs, and forced people to convert to Islam. Basically there is no difference between ISIS and the actions of Mohammad. The core/roots of Islam is intolerance and extermism.

  6. Hummer says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 2:16 am

    Excellent article reinforcing the truth we must all come to understand and make decisions based on this knowledge.

  7. voegelinian says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 2:17 am

    Greenfield has a lot of good essays. I often look forward to a new one.

    • John C. Barile says

      Sep 5, 2014 at 12:22 am

      Every day.

    • gravenimage says

      Sep 5, 2014 at 11:19 pm

      Yes—great stuff.

  8. PRCS says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 2:53 am

    I’ve passed this impressively well written essay on to several people.

    If it were merely an indictment of “moderate” Islam, it would be spot on; for there is no such thing.

    But as it also dismisses the notion of “moderate” Muslims, what should we call illiterate Muslim women and children in the Muslim world’s backwaters?

    Surely they’re not secular Muslims.

    • nacazo says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 4:34 am

      victims of islam, islamic hostages.

  9. Johnd says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 2:58 am

    I was thinking how clever this essay was and how I would post it to my rusted on leftist friends to expose the error of their ways when Daniel Greenfield would have go and shoot himself in the foot by saying scientific evidence for global warming does not exist, and all his arguments flew out the window then like pretty bubbles to go pop, pop, pop.

    • Neil Jennison says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 3:26 am

      You mean, he should have said “scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming does not exist”…….and of course global warming hasn’t happened for 15 or so years either.

      • Beagle says

        Sep 4, 2014 at 12:43 pm

        17 I believe. The average global temperature is virtually identical to 17 years ago.

        It’s not that the globe doesn’t warm or cool. It does so every day in every location, almost every instant everywhere. The truly startling thing about our climate in the late Holocene is how remarkably stable it’s been compared to almost any other time we’re aware of excluding the Hadean or snowball earths.

        When multicellular life existed on earth (500ish million years ago to present) CO2 levels have been >10x (ten times plus!) present concentrations (400 ppm or so) and life has thrived with no runaway greenhouse taking place. Those dinosaurs obviously had some really big coal plants.

        Present levels of CO2 are reducing desertification. If the concentration dropped down near 200 ppm there would be an enormous die off of plant life and our living world would come to an end as we know it.

    • nacazo says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 4:38 am

      agreed. additionally tackling global warming would be too much to handle for a liberal mind.

      • Paul says

        Sep 4, 2014 at 9:49 am

        Refraining from repeating leftist propaganda is too much for your mind. Since you’re clueless, let me drop the hint that leftists are illiberal no matter which sect of leftism they prefer. Hence their eagerness for you to repeat an absurd claim as if you’d been clicker trained in the parrot department of a bird sanctuary.

    • Yokel says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 8:25 am

      @Johnd
      Have you not yet realised that Anthropogenic Global Warming is just another Leftist hoax like the Moderate Muslim/Islam hoax?

      • nacazo says

        Sep 4, 2014 at 11:50 am

        yes but if you refute too many dogmas at a time their heads won’t compute. it’s better to tackle one at a a time.

    • Daniel Greenfield says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 11:06 am

      Feel free to snip out that part if it bothers you.

      • gravenimage says

        Sep 4, 2014 at 12:16 pm

        *Brilliant* piece, Mr. Greenfield. Thank you.

        • John C. Barile says

          Sep 5, 2014 at 12:25 am

          Mr. Greenfield perfectly describes the alternative universe inhabited by our social elites.

    • Mirren10 says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 12:27 pm

      ” … Daniel Greenfield would have go and shoot himself in the foot by saying scientific evidence for global warming does not exist, and all his arguments flew out the window then like pretty bubbles to go pop, pop, pop”

      **All** his arguments ? Dear me.

      There is also plenty of scientific evidence that ‘global warming’ does *not* exist; in fact it is a hotly contentious concept. Google ‘global warming hoax’ and see for yourself.

      As I said to your friend up above, to reject what Daniel Greenfield says about apologists for islam, because he doesn’t accept the blanket contentions of some scientists, argues a) a sad tendency to believe all one’s told, because a scientist says so, and b) an excuse to discredit what Daniel Greenfield says about islamic apologists.

  10. Neil Jennison says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 3:23 am

    A wonderful article. It said exactly what I have been saying only rather better!

    When will the west wake up?

  11. Kasey says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 3:58 am

    The real message of Islam is: Submission & conversion, or dhimminitude at your own risk, or departure, or death.

  12. bicky says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 6:05 am

    A superb article by Daniel !

  13. duh_swami says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 6:32 am

    Really good article…They hardly mention ‘moderate’ any more, the key word is now ‘radical’ Islam, which nearly all ‘know nothings’ are now using like a mantra….Which is another made up religion. I keep asking for the address and phone number of ‘The Church of Radical Islam’, but no one can provide it.
    Hannity is especially guilty. He cannot say the word ‘Islam’ by itself, it is always ‘radical’ Islam. He claims to have read Quran, which I doubt. If he did, he probably read one of those ‘versions’, of Quran that don’t really exist either.

    • PRCS says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 9:55 am

      “Hannity is especially guilty. He cannot say the word ‘Islam’ by itself, it is always ‘radical’ Islam.”

      I am especially disappointed by Fox News’ “personalities”.

      The five is another blatant example–Tantaros also claims to have read the Qur’an, yet always uses the “radical Islam” line.

      Tim Furnish, from Mahdi Watch, appeared on a Shepard Smith segment a few months ago. He was told by the show’s producers “not to bash the religion”.

      It does seem that most of our media has been similarly compromised.

    • gravenimage says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 12:23 pm

      Actually, FOX News pundits—for all their glaring shortcomings—are among *the best* we have when it comes to mainstream journalists dealing with the Jihad threat.

      The fact that this is true is in itself a major problem.

  14. R Cole says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 6:39 am

    Speaking of blockbuster flops – remember Water World – The Dry Land Myth!!

    Moderate Islam’s a Myth!!

    :: ::

    There was one random paper on line – [archived document/excerpt ] written in the 80’s –

    which examined Muslims in the US in particular – who were praised for being well integrated – had come to the attention of the Arabian or other higher Islamic authority – noted that the ones who received the praise – for taking part in western society – were overwhelmingly not practising Muslims – they complained. And sought at that time to remedy this.

    It talked of the need to Islamize the American Muslim.

    We have seen – the lighter versions of Islam – littered with traditional practise – gone after.

    In India – an Imam talked of something similar – he ran a mosque almost like a chapel on the hill type – but down the road was built a big mega Saudi funded mosque – like a cubic mass descended from space – all the young people ran to it – no one wanted to hear the old selection of verses [Including getting along with your Hindu neighbors… and similar sounds].

    ::

    The main proponents of the multiculturalism today – have had to cover up so much of the reality of issues surround Islamic practise to keep this whole thing going.

    It is almost like Homer Simpsons religion – and behind it all [this repressive movement called Movementarianism] was a guy with a peddle cycle space ship.

    The whole thing is fake – but through fear can keep people in line.

    Take for example the rape of literally thousands of minor girls in the UK – and this is not the first mass rape case uncovered – one of the government employees who tried to bring the issue to the attention of the authorities in the latest Rotherham, UK case – was herself sent to cultural sensitivity classes – for being a ‘racist’.

    There has been a concerted effort – not only to define what is Islam – be even to define what is lawful in the face of it.

    [In Dearborn Michigan, it has been reported the police cover up honor killings – girl comes in with her throat slashed – she committed suicide.]

    Taken together – it might be viewed as crimes against humanity – as these guys are on the wrong side of history.

    It might not be good enough to say – I was simply following orders.

  15. Silvia says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 6:59 am

    Brilliant essay!!!

  16. Jaladhi says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 7:01 am

    Multiculturalism is new Islam that the West has to follow!! Funny this new religion is invented by the West and will lead to demise of the West!!

  17. shortfattexan says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 7:58 am

    A moderate Muslim is one who agrees with the beheadings, but doesn’t carry them out himself.

  18. stevea55 says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 8:00 am

    Yes, an excellent article.

    Except for the bit about global warming, which may well exist as a result of fossil fuel burning imho. Also, the final sentence needs a couple of errors fixing. I suspect it was added after the rest had been checked, as I can see no other errors.

    Anyhow, more importantly, I remember Robert writing a book suggesting that Mo never existed, and that the whole theology of Islam was probably dreamed up sometime after the early conquests in order to challenge the Judaic (chosen people) religion with an Arab (best of creation) ideology intended to displace the former.

    In which case, is it true to say that moderate Islam does not really exist; agreed.
    But that also neither does any other form of Islam, whether sunni, sufi, salafi, wahhabi, shiite, etc…?

    What exists is what people believe in, based on any number of variable factors. The liberal lefty secularist insistence on ‘moderate’ Islam, is wishful thinking, yes. But given a choice of non-existent religions, and given that some people have a lot of emotional attachment to ‘Islam’, whatever that may or may not be, I ask: what shape do we want this shape-shifting ideology to assume in the west?

    The answer has to be, something compatible with western mores and laws.
    Also, compatible with other religions. That’s the only kind we can abide here in the enlightened democratic nations.

    So why not be open about this and declare that any intolerant or antisocial forms of Islam or any other faith, be declared illegal and subject to the full penalty of the law in civilised countries. Put an amendment to that effect in the UDHR even?
    [http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/]

    Whaddya think Obumma?

    • gravenimage says

      Sep 5, 2014 at 1:00 am

      Steavea55 wrote:

      In which case, is it true to say that moderate Islam does not really exist; agreed.
      But that also neither does any other form of Islam, whether sunni, sufi, salafi, wahhabi, shiite, etc…?
      ………………………………….

      Steve, there is a difference between a religion existing and its *being true*.

      Clearly, orthodox Islam *exists*—it has over a billion adherents—it does not matter in this regard whether there is really an Allah or Jannah or not.

      Whereas, “moderate Islam” does not exist at all—except in the minds of hopeful Infidels.

      More:

      What exists is what people believe in, based on any number of variable factors. The liberal lefty secularist insistence on ‘moderate’ Islam, is wishful thinking, yes. But given a choice of non-existent religions, and given that some people have a lot of emotional attachment to ‘Islam’, whatever that may or may not be, I ask: what shape do we want this shape-shifting ideology to assume in the west?
      ………………………………….

      Actually, Islam is not particularly “shape-shifting” at all—consistently, we find that Muslims embrace exactly the same faith. The only difference at all is degree of piety.

      So—with respect—what makes you think that Muslims will give up every major tenet of Islam—the domination of Infidels, oppression of women, and imposition of brutal Shari’ah law—just because the same Infidels they so hate and despise *want them to*?

      Don’t you know that pious Muslims regularly sneer at the idea that there is an “American Islam” or a “Western Islam”?

      The only real purpose of the idea of “moderate Islam” has not been to reform Islam, but just to lull credulous Infidels into a false sense of security.

  19. Thomas Black says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 8:28 am

    “… the Socialist projects of Europe which depend on heavy immigration collapse.” European leaders thought that Muslim immigration would be good for the economy. But the social welfare money spent on these immigrants has been high. The crimes (both common and terrorism) and social discord are also heavy costs. It is a fantasy to believe that as Muslims gain political power in Europe that they will pay for the pensions and health care of the Christians. In short, this immigration has been a huge failure. It would have been better to have taken stronger measures to increase the native birthrate or to promote immigration of people with similar values.

    • stevea55 says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 9:03 am

      Hi Thomas,

      I agree with your comments, except that I do wonder why it was considered necessary to increase the population size.

      Is a growing population really necessary in a mature society. Especially one as small as Britain? It might even be better to allow the numbers to fall somewhat if we want to be sustainable, and let the population find its own level naturally.

      We seem to focus on population growth, hoping that will drive economic growth, regardless of other factors, like quality of life.

      Steve

      • St. Michael Defend Us says

        Sep 4, 2014 at 10:49 am

        It was another con game. I remember a big push at least 40 years ago for “Zero Population Growth” and if possible, negative population, and at that time the projections were that the earth was going to run out of energy, and food, and mankind would starve itself to death. The solution then was to reduce the human population voluntarily, through family planning and abortion. The only people who seemed to get the “message” were better-educated people who could, and would, actually work and support a family. Couple that with high taxes, and family sizes of productive people fell, while populations of government dependents rose in proportion.
        Then, we were told that in order to keep supporting government programs we would need to let in huge numbers of immigrants who would work and pay taxes. That made things worse, not better, as they began increasing the dependent population even more.

      • Thomas Black says

        Sep 4, 2014 at 11:36 am

        Mark Steyn has written extensively about population size and birth rates. The problem is that in many societies, the average age is increasing. They have a shrinking working population supporting a growing number of retirees. The low retirement ages common in Europe, combined with increasing life expectancy, makes the problem more difficult.

        An increase in the retirement age could help, but to be equitable it would have to be phased in over decades. And if a population decline was very gradual it might not be a problem. But the birth rate of many groups has fallen off a cliff. This has happened with Christian populations in Europe, but Japan is perhaps a more interesting example. The crowding in Japan was a factor in the Japanese aggression that led to WWII. Today, the population of Japan is even higher. Their steep birth rate decline is causing the population size to head downward, but the aging of the population is a significant problem.

  20. tpellow says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 8:34 am

    Yes, Daniel Greenfield in on target.

    In U.K, it is clear on two current issues:
    1.) Pakistani Muslim sex violence in Rotherham, etc ,
    2.) Islamic State barbarities by ‘English’ and other jihadists

    -that the political ‘left,’ even now, is in denial about the part played by its own role in promoting ‘multiculturalism’ as a cover for non-criticism of Islam, in all its practices.

  21. barryT says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 8:34 am

    Things I respect about Robert Spencer:
    – he is a serious student of the subjects of Islam and Islamist supremacism
    – whether one agrees with him or not, one is forced to consult the sources in order to respond
    – he seems to be prepared to put his views on the line and subject himself to the challenge of public, reasoned debate with just about anyone
    – in any of the debates I have seen he does quite well and is able to back up his assertions with factual references – his opponents, not so much.

    But – you knew there was a ‘but’, right?

    The article he cites here is representative of the problem with the approach of Spencer, Greenfield, and others (including many of those leaving comments on this blog) to this issue. Islamism is much too serious a threat to democracy and, I would say, to human survival, for it to become yet another football in the ugly American culture wars, as reflected in this article.

    There are certainly many knaves on the left when it comes to Islamist extremism, but there are also many on the conservative end of the political spectrum. You might want to think about whether Ronald Reagan may not have adopted the best strategy when he decided to make friends with bin Laden and the Taliban. George W. Bush is the one who rushed in to topple the unlamented Saddam Hussein, without any notion of how to govern afterward, when he should have been focused on the hunt for bin Laden and the Taliban monsters Reagan had helped to create. And the banning of Spencer and Geller from the UK, to take an example often cited on this blog, was under the direction of the very conservative Cameron government. These are a few examples of conservatives, indeed very powerful conservatives, who have done damage to the cause of human liberty and democracy in the face of the Islamist threat.

    I am a Canadian progressive. Most readers here would probably translate that to mean Marxist Revolutionary. In fact, it means no more than that I think that people and institutions with more wealth should pay more taxes so that we can fund common services for the good of everyone. I am ok with a ‘have/have more’ world, but not ok with ‘have/have not’. That view does not depend on immigration, and to suggest that it does is absurd. In Canada, for example, many recent immigrants trend to more conservative economic and cultural views. Indeed, many of the immigrants from Muslim countries would likely agree with more elements of the conservative political agenda than with the political policies of the ‘left.’ I expect this is true of the immigrants in many countries.

    However, one belief that we have in common, both progressives and conservatives, is that our political differences can only be debated in a free and democratic society. And I think we could also agree that those concepts, freedom and democracy, were and continue to be the pre-conditions for the greatest achievements of humanity and civilization.

    Both are now under threat. If the Islamists have their way, the progressive vs conservative culture wars will be settled once and for all – everyone will live in theocratic, fascist misery. That is the worst-case scenario. If they get their hands on the nuclear weapons, we may be spared the world-wide Caliphate because it is possible that large parts of the planet will be rendered uninhabitable in their insane drive to vindicate their nihilistic ideology.

    Given the severity of the threat, the attempts to paint Islamism as the creation and tool of progressive or leftist political views is not only partisan hyperbole, it actually contributes to the paralysis that seems to have defined the response to the threat from all sides of the political spectrum in that it inhibits reasonable people of all political views from having a reasonable debate about what to do in the face of this very real threat.

    Do we really have the luxury of blaming each other? Should we continue with what amounts to school-yard name calling while the danger swirls around us? Where are the statesmanlike thinkers and leaders who can cut across the empty, destructive rhetoric and call for the kind of united response that will actually make a difference?

    Winston Churchill, as conservative a politician as ever ruled the UK, made it a condition of his war-time government that the Labour party join in a “National Unity” government. Moreover, he took the coalition seriously, and gave Labour members very important posts in the government. Once the European war was over, and the Nazis had been defeated, the gloves were off. The political differences between Labour and the Conservatives were allowed to bloom again in a free and democratic country. And the debate over laissez-fair capitalism versus social democracy rages on to this day.

    If only that kind of leadership was available to us now. We need it not just in one country but across the globe, given the pervasive nature of the threat.

    Rather than using the Islamist threat to stoke the fires of Obama-obsession or to buttress a world view that “The Left” is to blame for all evil, maybe it is time to attempt to identify allies on all points along the political spectrum, and to make common cause for individual liberty and democracy.

    Perhaps you can consider for a moment if your enemy is really your democratic progressive fellow citizens. You may disagree with or even despise the idea of taxing the wealthy but such ideas have nothing to do with the threat before us. Our common enemy is religious fascism.

    I am making the suggestion that perhaps we can agree to have a reasoned debate about our differing views some other time. Maybe now it is time to start a dialogue that leads to the international equivalent of Churchill’s National Unity government. Not a real government, obviously, but that kind of mutual trust and cooperation, maybe even a little grudging respect, that will make all of us stronger in the face of Islamism. We can build it from the ground up. Maybe we can even start on this blog.

    The only reason I suggest it is that the clock is ticking and building bridges might actually move us towards our common goal of stamping out a growing threat to all of our futures.

    • Myxlplik says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 9:54 am

      I’m a little tired of being clubbed over the head like a Harp Seal, fleeced and left to rot in the sun by Progressive politicians pandering for votes from lazy, public fund grifters, who have better health insurance than I can afford, but I’m willing to talk reasonably about Islam.

      You have to admit, though, the real Multicultural fanatics are on the left, and it is fanaticism of the religious, it’s faith.

      • barryT says

        Sep 4, 2014 at 10:35 am

        Multiculturalism can be seen as the Frankenstein version of something quite important, tolerance and mutual respect. Clearly we lose perspective, to say the least, when the laudable attitude of respect for others blinds us to a direct and obvious threat. All religions are not the same, and we should draw the line where religious views impinge on public policy, particularly when those views are directly opposed to individual liberty and democracy, as is the case with Islamism. I am all for respecting the views of others. But I have no time for anyone who wants to tell someone else what to do based on their particular holy book.

        I am not sure I agree completely that the multicultural mantra is mainly a problem or article of faith on the left. It seems to have pervaded our entire culture, and all sides seem to use the ‘religion of peace’ trope as the standard response to each fresh atrocity. I use the current UK government as an example. I am sure most conservatives in America would support Cameron’s policies in other areas but look at what is happening there on the Islamist front. Recent sickening developments seems to finally be having some impact but one would have thought the many previous assaults would have led to action much earlier.

        Your first paragraph was cleverly written, even if I disagree with the perspective expressed therein! And I appreciate the sentiment of supporting reasonable talk. Here’s to more of the same.

        • voegelinian says

          Sep 4, 2014 at 1:56 pm

          “I am not sure I agree completely that the multicultural mantra is mainly a problem or article of faith on the left. It seems to have pervaded our entire culture”

          Lol, that’s what I’ve been saying every which way but loose for like 7 solid years now — in relentlessly repeated comments in various threads here at Jihad Watch over the years, at Gates of Vienna blog, at the FrontPage comments threads, at the 1389 Counterjihad blog, on my blog the Hesperado… Either no one’s reading me (or they get too distracted by triflingly superficial “problems” they have with my style and, like an infant distracted by a colorful mobile hanging over his or her crib, loses sight of the essential point), or I’m practically the only one who has noticed that PC MC is mainstream and pervasive and not limited to the Left; or both. It’s really rather wearying; I must be a masochist on some level…

      • voegelinian says

        Sep 4, 2014 at 1:37 pm

        When it comes to the problem of Islam, most conservatives throughout the West are PC MC. It is noteworthy that Greenfield didn’t use the word “liberal” once in his essay, and only at the very end referred parenthetically to “lefty”; and yet most JWers have received the telegraph he may not have intended — that the West’s continuing myopia to the problem of Islam is only a “Leftist” or “liberal” problem.

        • Anushirvan says

          Sep 4, 2014 at 2:32 pm

          Very true. Besides, Multiculturalism is a deliberate misnomer.

          Multiculturalism is NOT about celebrating diversity, that is simply a ruse. We don’t initiate (non-reciprocal) interfaith dialogues with other religions, because there’s no need to do so. We don’t need to cart bus loads of school kids off to Jewish synagogues, Hindu, Jain or Buddhist temples or Sikh Gurdwaras, nor do we feel the need to go visit Parsi communities to learn about their faith, for instance.

          The concept of Multiculturalism simply focuses on Islam, the term is designed specifically to shame us into believing that we are racists as soon as we criticize Islam, and Islam only ! It’s as if all other minorities have vanished from this planet altogether.

          Because useful idiots don’t give a damn about diversity, and neither do they give a toss about the knowledge of cultures or history, unless to reinterpret both of these concepts in order to go GRIEVANCE MONGERING and make the West either look bad or have its leaders crank up the public displays of soothing rhetoric, in the mistaken belief that their idiotic fiction of moderate Islam will preemptively calm the millions of muslims in our midst !

          Just believe in it, and some day it will materialize of its own accord, that’s what they believe !

          It’s all fear, complacency, ethical narcissism and denial rolled into one single disingenuous concept: multiculturalism ! It’s the genuine Islamophobia, the fear of Islam itself among the perpetual do-gooders with no backbone, plus the continuous appropriation of the sanctimonious air of moral virtue of our political classes that is killing civilization off and makes them want to look the other way !

          Multiculturalism is a sham !

        • voegelinian says

          Sep 4, 2014 at 6:29 pm

          “Besides, Multiculturalism is a deliberate misnomer.

          Multiculturalism is NOT about celebrating diversity, that is simply a ruse. ”

          Well, I think there are two Multiculturalisms out there; and you are confusing the two (perhaps because you think there is only one). This gives me an opportunity to repeat, from another angle, my point about how this is not merely a Leftist problem: One of the two Multiculturalisms that exists as a sociopolitical force in the West is a more or less healthy respect for cultural diversity coupled with a genuine curiosity about the Other. This has been a complex and amorphous process in Western history, and is rooted in our four pillars of Judaeo-Christian and Graeco-Roman universalism (not a static ideal, but an ongoing imperfect project spanning millennia and still cooking). It’s not perfect, however, and it contains within itself seeds of problems that can devolve. This Multiculturalism is not really an ideology, but more like part of a squishy vague worldview.

          The other Multiculturalism afoot in our modern West is an ideology, and it is, as you say, a pseudo-diversity. It is neither really about diversity nor is it about cultural “relativism” — it is about an absolutist antipathy to the West’s Judaeo-Christian heritage in favor of some alternative ranging from vaguely utopian platitudes merging into an incoherent mush of Socialism, on to more red-blooded Marxism. In this sense, in terms of an enthusiastic more or less conscious affirmation, this Multiculturalism is the province of Leftists — but as my analysis implies, Leftists are not a monolithic simplex species: they occupy many points along a spectrum, from “Leftists Lite” all the way up to the robust Communist revolutionaries at the other extreme. At the bottom end, with Leftism Lite, we are at the area where the Leftist river, so to speak, bottoms out to a wider ocean PC MC — in which the majority of conservatives swim pretty much enjoying themselves and patting themselves on their backs with their fins for being so modern, open-minded, tolerant, and progressive enough to be freeing themselves from their evil heritage of “racism” (thus all too easily confusing Islam with the racism problem because whenever they see a Muslim, they see an Ethnic Person, and the PC MC in their hearts & minds triggers a micro-anxiety lest their Inner White Western Bigot might have a spasm of recurrance which will be noticed by the society at large and from there, ostracize them to the Outer Darkness outside Polite PC Company).

          Conservatives too are not a monolithic bloc, but come in many types and gradations. Unfortunately, the type that has graduated to a robust anti-Islam position without showing signs of PC anxiety (a Michelle Bachmann, a Frank Gaffney, a Diana West, a…. can’t think of anyone else…) remains all too uncommon in the mainstream.

        • Anushirvan says

          Sep 5, 2014 at 9:38 am

          “One of the two Multiculturalisms that exists as a sociopolitical force in the West is a more or less healthy respect for cultural diversity coupled with a genuine curiosity about the Other.” Prior to the onslaught of Islam, people in the West didn’t need to be educated explicitly into this “part of a squishy vague worldview.”, as you call it.

          Such a world view didn’t even have a name prior to the early 90’s. At the time, most reasonable people would’ve held this diffuse world view anyway, without anyone else having to rubber-stamp such a concept explicitly in order to address problems associated with it and to lumber us with a guilt trip, because these “intercultural” problems would’ve been next to non-existent at this stage. But this all started changing in the early 90’s !

          I agree that the idea behind Multiculturalism is deeply rooted in the Western sense of overall reasonability rooted in our traditions. The named concept itself, however, is explicitly designed to make people cower with shame and make them stop criticizing Islam ! The very word “Multiculturalism” did not take center stage in the public discourse (here in Europe) until pseudo-intellectuals found to there dismay that they had worn out the concept of “racism” to batter us with, which became a concept devoid of any meaning in the end.

          I remember that some conservative nationalist parties (conveniently branded “extreme-right” at the time by the powers that be) actually made mention of the long-term problems we were going to have with Islam (and Islam only) in the foreseeable future, and they already did this in the mid-80’s. And guess what ? Their main criticism pertained solely to muslim immigration, no mention was ever made (or needed to be made) of any other minority causing systemic problems !

          People understood perfectly well at the time that this allegation of so-called racism was simply a ruse to shame and eventually persecute a political party with in a court of law, and not a genuine race-related issue, pertaining to some sort of “world solidarity view” !

          And it’s easy to understand why: all non-muslim minorities in the West seemed to have evaporated in the pseudo-intellectual conscience and the mind of the general public, given the fact that these minorities integrated into our societies without any systemic problems occurring for the communities they were living in. And the general public was very well aware of it !

          The peddlers of the racist rhetoric full well realized that the vast majority of people in the West were not going to behave like racists towards genuinely integrated minorities, so they had a problem on their hands: the “racist” rhetoric didn’t hold out for much longer. Their credibility was at stake. Our political elites, whether Left or Right, all played this “racism” card with equal vigor, simultaneously. This wasn’t a Leftwing problem to start with !

          So what were our “elites” supposed to do with this now ? Well, simply repackage this rhetoric and play the tedious semantics game by renaming it “Multiculturalism” ! To be more precise, “If we can’t name and shame people on the racial dimension anymore, then we are going to widen the scope: let’s accuse people of turning against either all non-Western cultures or specific types of non-Western culture ! Easy peasy !” Simply put: just posit a new and more evasive concept as a measuring stick to accuse people with, and nobody can make a counter-argument stick ! Simple as that !

          And still the same backlash applies to this ridiculous repackaging of anti-racism: common people using common sense are just as much aware of this being a stupid attempt to lumber us with a guilt-trip as soon as we start criticizing “Islamic” culture, when at the same time no one is actually criticizing any other culture in our societies ! The transparency of the multicultural non-argument is plain for everybody to see. For the sake of multiculturalism, we should cease criticizing Islam. If, hypothetically, I would feel the need to criticize Sikhism, Judaism, Jainism or Hinduism one day, the average multiculturalist would probably not be so quick of the mark to accuse me of any wrongdoing ! They would probably shrug this off without giving it a second thought ! Multiculturalists may be do-gooders to some degree, but let’s face it: there’s an awful lot of wanton hypocrisy and power grabbing involved, and more to the point, it is pervasive among all political strata and the legacy MSM beholden tot their interests !

          What you are referring to as “part of a squishy vague worldview” is not a coherent philosophy, but rather a state of mind, a state of mind that I definitely can relate to. In fact, in this sense, I am much more of a genuine “multiculturalist” (I absolutely fucking hate this word, knowing full well where it originates) than those people who rhetorically abuse the word to name and shame others as racists, Islamophobes or bigots. I would be perfectly happy to live nextdoor to a Hindu, an Arab Christian, a Jew, A Parsi Indian, or a Thai Buddhist, in the rather secure knowledge that neither of these cultures would present their host countries with systemic problems of stubborn non-integration, like Islam does ! Hell, I would even consider replacing every Muslim in the West with members of the aforementioned groups persecuted in their own countries, if such a thing would make Western civilizations both genuinely multicultural AND free from terrorist fear, and to show genuine concern for the real persecuted minorities of this world. Of course, anyone who adheres to some level of rationalism can draw such a conclusion independently, but the PC MC don’t care about any of that: they don’t give a toss about culture and diversity, they don’t understand the essential distinctions between cultures or ethnicities like I do. All these things are “beside the point”, academic, in their mind. Mollycoddling has to be applied on muslims alone, and no one else !

          It is bad enough that this benign universalist attitude you’re speaking of, instrumental in the foundation of the UN and universal human rights, has been hijacked by the Frankfurter school to turn it into a disingenuous “anti-imperialist movement” with Leftist leanings, but all throughout the decades (from the seventies right to his point in time) I have observed that this multiculturalism (previously called anti-racism) has gained wider currency on the sole strength of it having been able to seep into the general discourse by way of the MSM, to the point where all the “elite classes” have parroted this ridiculous rhetoric ad nauseam to turn it into an overarching state “doctrine” everyone should abide by.

          Multiculturalism has served its purpose as a philosophical non-entity: any time one is to challenge the psycho-babble of the multiculturalist pseudo-intellectuals, they tend to lower their standards by ultimately resorting to calling their adversaries “racists”in the end, which is decidedly an old-school 80’s approach. This tells me exactly what I need to know: in the absence of a real argument to back up this “philosophy”, the multicultural house of cards is caving in and the rhetoric suddenly turns into something less sophisticated. Multiculturalism = anti-racism in the long run.

          This also tells me that multiculturalism is the hobby horse project of panicky grievance mongers running around with their tails between their legs, rubbing shoulders with the grievance mongers of Islam, their natural allies in this day and age. Throughout the decades we have been led to believe that all immigration would be beneficial to our societies across the West. In 2014, we can see the blatant exception to this rule: Islam is not here to integrate but to conquer. Those who have been responsible for rampant muslim immigration have tried to keep the lid on this, and now they are faced with a reality that becomes too horrendous for them to even seriously contemplate: THEY HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN from start to finish. No matter how many instances of muslim cruelty and terrorism occur both abroad and in the West, the PC MC have decided the only way to make this problem go away is to flatly deny it altogether. A simple and meek strategy that involves no energy invested in stopping the tide or actually doing something about it.

          Cognitive dissonance literally reigns supreme in their mind: the WEST HAS BEEN LITERALLY SHORT-CHANGED BY MUSLIM IMMIGRATION, and the only way to deal with this is to conclude that “ISIS has nothing to do with Islam”, “most muslims are moderates”, “there IS such a thing as moderate Islam, dontcha know ?”, “Mutawwin patrolling London streets are misunderstanders of Islam”, “The killers of Lee Rigby are misunderstanders of Islam”, etc. Boko Haram did not exist in their mind until 200 girls got kidnapped, al-Shabab did not constitute a threat until suddenly people on vacation got killed in a Kenian shopping mall. Suddenly, out of nowhere, the papers know that there is a Yazidi minority in Iraq, would you believe it !

          When the self-indulgence of PC MC ethical narcissists gets challenged and these events are getting too close for comfort, the denial spirals even more out of control and goes into overdrive ! I can imagine that some of these useful idiots may just lie awake at night bathing in puddles of their own sweat, thinking “What if these Counterjihadists are actually right ? What if they are right in concluding that not a single one of us is to be redeemed when the global caliphate has been established ? I can’t bear the thought of that !” And the next day, they again make a ritual of repeating all the tedious crackpot PC MC rhetoric to fool themselves with, and the general public. They think that by saving their own face, they will be able to save all of our lives. It’s all talk, and no balls, no muscle !

          Now that, my friend, reeks of the panic and fear of failed Multiculturalism, which is NOT a coherent philosophy, but rather a superstitious ritual with which PC MC people want to regain control over their insecurities and their pitiful pseudo-intellectual and hollow truisms ! By simply lying to us and believing that’s going to solve the mess they themselves have helped to create ! Which spells ethical narcissism above all else. Multiculturalism is a denial mechanism ! And not a philosophy. There are no multiple multiculturalisms to speak of.

          Why criticize me, for Pete’s sake ? What is the point of that ?

        • gravenimage says

          Sep 5, 2014 at 11:26 pm

          I’ve often noted as well that while false pc/mc is a larger problem on the left, that it has infested the whole of the West long since at this point.

    • JeffS says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 10:16 am

      Excellent post, barryT.

    • Daniel Greenfield says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 11:02 am

      I would take issue with some of the things you state as facts (e.g. Reagan didn’t become friends with Bin Laden, though he did plenty of other things wrong when it came to Islam, Cameron’s gov is hardly “very conservative”) but setting all that aside… certainly there are those on the right who are guilty.

      I doubt there’s anyone here who would disagree with that, though they would point out that the guiltiest parties are liberal Republicans and assorted right of center parties and politicians influenced more by the left than the right.

      And the fact of the matter is that it’s the ideology of the left that is largely driving Islamic immigration and the Islamophobia myth. Conservative parties often aid and abet these things largely because they have no original ideas and a good 60 percent of their program usually comes from the left, e.g. Mark Twain’s quote about the worship of fossilized radicals.

      If there was any kind of significant CounterJihadist consensus on the left, as on the right, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

      I would love for such a thing to exist, but it doesn’t.

      I don’t want this to be a football in the culture wars, but wanting it doesn’t make it so. I didn’t want the left to stab America in the back after 9/11. But it did.

      There are people associated with the right who are just as bad, e.g. Ron Paul, but they have far less influence in the overall direction.

      Things are somewhat better in Europe. There are those on the left who have a presence in the Counterjihad there, but the overall picture is still the same.

      I would be happy to see a national unity Counterjihad, but right now the only unity I see is those on the “right” like Bush or Cameron echoing multicultural idiocies about Islam while shunning their own party members who tell the truth.

      Despite that there’s a voice for the Counterjihad in the political movements of the right. Can you honestly say the same for the political movements of the left?

      • barryT says

        Sep 4, 2014 at 1:38 pm

        Mr. Greenfield,

        I assume it is you and not someone misappropriating your name. If so, I thank you taking the time and doing me the honour of a direct reply. Never expected that.

        I do not pretend to be an expert in any of this, and I am sure you have thought longer and harder about it than I have. Some of the problem in communication might come down to something you alluded to in your reference to Cameron – how do we define right and left, progressive and conservative.

        You are quite right to point out that the strongest voices for ‘Counterjihad’ are in the political movements on the right. That is something to be regretted and rectified. Sometimes I see signs of hope but that is about all. I think that given the most recent events, especially the rise of ISIS, there might be an opportunity to broaden the discussion somewhat and to get more people to wake up to the problem we face. It is as grave and far reaching as our fight with another form of fascism in the 20th century. My main point is that a broadening of the discussion and a strengthening of the resistance cannot occur if we drag along our own entrenched tribal allegiances, whether they be political, economic or cultural. The threat is too severe for us to indulge in such a luxury. I suggest we try to set as much of that as we can aside with the goal of building a stronger coalition to face the jihadis at every level. If that cannot happen, so be it, but I don’t like our chances if we circle the wagons and start firing in.

        With regard to Reagen, I did not mean to suggest he and OBL were fishing buddies. I had in mind the financial and military assistance to the Mujahideen during the war with the Soviets, and his statement that the Taliban were the moral equivalent of the American Founding Fathers.

        Again, I appreciate the chance to express my thoughts to you directly. I am about to leave on an extended weekend vacation and may not be able to monitor this site for several days. Please to not take any resulting silence as disrespect for your views should you decide to provide a further response.

        • nacazo says

          Sep 4, 2014 at 6:11 pm

          grover norquist doesn’t even pass the low bar.

        • John C. Barile says

          Sep 5, 2014 at 12:33 am

          Do click on Daniel Greenfield’s name to link to his website–it’s worth the trip.

      • voegelinian says

        Sep 4, 2014 at 5:02 pm

        Now that Mr. Greenfield has more explicitly addressed the left/right idea and its relation to the problem of Islam, it does seem to become clear that he, like most in the Counter-Jihad, fails to appreciate fully the cultural sociological historical dimension of the problem of Western myopia to the problem of Islam.

        Part of this myopia to the myopia may well stem, ironically, from asymptotic tendencies within the Counter-Jihad (by “asymptotic” I mean the retention of PC MC in one degree or another in the hearts and minds of individuals in the Counter-Jihad). In this context, that retention comes in the form of retaining the TMOE meme (Tiny Minority of Extremists) — where there only difference between the otherwise no-nonsense stalwart Counter-Jihadist and the filthy “liberal” who has full-blown PC MC is the definition of “Tiny Minority” (the Counter-Jihadist has a much larger Tiny Minority of Extremists in his mind as the problem, and then pats himself on the back for his gritty realism contrasted to the filthy liberals with their PC MC).

        The way this works in this context: The asymptotic Counter-Jihadist sets a relatively low bar for his definition of a suitably Counter-Jihad position, and when the majority of conservatives pass the test set by that relatively low bar, the Counter-Jihadist concludes a bit too eagerly and readily that “most conservatives, unlike the filthy liberals, are on our side”. His simplistic logic here is encouraged by the all-too easy spectacle of the majority of liberals failing the test of that relatively low bar. The rational and nuanced conclusion to draw here is not that most conservatives “get it” while liberals don’t — but rather that, while liberals are indeed egregiously worse, this doesn’t let the majority of conservatives off the hook for their own version of the TMOE meme (and their consequently squishy soft view of most Muslims). The reason the asymptotic Counter-Jihadist lets them off the hook is two-fold:

        1) a reflexive antipathy to liberalism/Leftism inculcated for years prior to their post-911 awakening to the problem of Islam, predisposing them to divide up the good guys from the bad guys along the right/left faultline;

        2) an asymptotic view of the nature of the problem of Islam (various flavors of this — ranging from those who don’t think all of Islam is 100% pernicious and deadly, to those who do, but then find ways to redeem countless numbers of Muslims from our rational suspicion of all Muslims, often ironically (given their support of this essay by Greenfield) through permutations of the moderate Muslim under other terms (thus they will pat themselves on the back for rejecting the “moderate Muslim” but then (most often unwittingly) they’ll slip essentially the same category back in through the back door under other names — the Lax Muslims will do; or the Muslims Who Don’t Know Their Own Islam also come in handy; as well as the Muslims Who Are Too Afraid To Come Out of the Secularist Closet — or more recently comes along the MINO (“Muslim In Name Only”, echoing the RINO, the “Republican In Name Only” or false Conservative).

        Etc.

        Another permutation I saw not too long ago from a Jihad Watcher:

        “The vast majority [of Muslims] support the literal interpretation even if they do not have the strength of conviction to carry it out.”

        So now we have innumerable Muslims out there who lack the “strength of conviction to carry out” the Islam that has been waging war on us for 1,400 years (and portends horrific mass-murders of us in the coming decades if the West continues its myopia).

        I’m sure there are many other permutations where these came from, and asymptotics will generate new ones in order to continue to indulge their De Nile.

        Meanwhile, I’ll continue to repeat the meme we few canaries in the coalmine at the cutting edge of the vanguard — We few, we happy few, we band of brothers (and sisters) — should be pushing in the “battle space” of the war of ideas (as Frank Gaffney, himself a rare conservative veteran of many shameful confrontations from conservatives, so aptly put it):

        Islam is the problem, and all Muslims enable that problem.

        Is that so hard to enunciate and stand for? Apparently so.

        • voegelinian says

          Sep 4, 2014 at 5:05 pm

          Just to clarify: Frank Gaffney didn’t articulate that meme at the close of my comment; but he did coin the fine phrase “the battle space in the war of ideas”.

    • Scott in PA says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 11:02 am

      Nice try but no sale. The penetration of Islam (not Islamism) into Western culture was accomplished by leftism and multiculturalism, which nominally hold that vastly different cultures and belief systems should be treated with equal respect, but in reality are designed to devalue Christianity, tradition, and the natural inequality that results from freedom.

      The problem is much more than the differences in tax rates. The West must first deprogram itself from the irrationality of Leftism before it can begin to solve Islam. I don’t see that happening.

    • gravenimage says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 1:04 pm

      barry T wrote:

      Islamism is much too serious a threat to democracy and, I would say, to human survival, for it to become yet another football in the ugly American culture wars, as reflected in this article.
      ………………………………….

      I’m afraid the threat is not “Islamism”, but just Islam. Saying “Islamism” is just the same as insisting there is a “radical Islam”.

      As far as the “culture wars” go, I would *love* to see a large number of liberals recognize the Jihad threat—I’m liberal on many issues myself. But the fact is that—so far at least—very few on the left have acknowledged the threat, even though Islam threatens almost everything liberals hold dear.

      No one would be happier to see that than myself.

      More:

      You might want to think about whether Ronald Reagan may not have adopted the best strategy when he decided to make friends with bin Laden and the Taliban…
      ………………………………….

      Ronald Reagan, like virtually everyone else in the 1980s—didn’t understand the Jihad threat at all. How many of us did? I was concerned about hijackings and attacks on Israel, but except for that I was clueless.

      Certainly, Reagan was short-sighted at best in thinking that Jihadists could present a brake on Communism—but to say that he “helped create” bin Laden and the Taliban is going too far. Though we did not realize it at the time, Islam was already becoming resurgent at the time.

      More:

      And the banning of Spencer and Geller from the UK, to take an example often cited on this blog, was under the direction of the very conservative Cameron government.
      ………………………………….

      Not really. And this goes more to show that—as is the case—out of control ‘political correctness’ is now rife in the West in general.

      As for your leftist economic views, they are not so different from those of the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders. Many individuals are deemed “conservative” or even “right-wing” merely because they comprehend the Jihad threat.

      More:

      Both are now under threat. If the Islamists have their way, the progressive vs conservative culture wars will be settled once and for all – everyone will live in theocratic, fascist misery.
      ………………………………….

      This is very true—and the exact reason why we should be standing together facing the threat. All too often this is not happening.

      More:

      Given the severity of the threat, the attempts to paint Islamism as the creation and tool of progressive or leftist political views is not only partisan hyperbole…
      ………………………………….

      I don’t believe *anyone* is claiming that “Islamism” was created by leftists—this is absurd.

      But many in the West, intentionally or not, are *enabling* Jihad. The problem is society-wide, but is definitely a bigger problem over all on the left due to ‘political correctness’. God knows I wish this were not so—but it is, and cannot be ignored anymore than Islam itself can.

      I do think it can change—but except for a few individuals, it has not yet.

      Perhaps you can work to change it—that might be more productive than chiding those who point out the problem.

      I very much agree that *everyone* in the free West should join together against Jihad, just as our parents and grandparents stood together against Fascism.

      But right now, politically, we’re still somewhere in the 1930s—where some are alarmed about the rise of the Nazis, but as many are impressed with the Fascists and believe the present a model for the West to emulate, and think those concerned are just alarmists—and where most are not paying much attention at all, but are just caught up in their own concerns, and think Hitler is just a guy with a funny mustache…

    • Mirren10 says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 1:08 pm

      ”The article he cites here is representative of the problem with the approach of Spencer, Greenfield, and others (including many of those leaving comments on this blog) to this issue.
      …
      I am a Canadian progressive. Most readers here would probably translate that to mean Marxist Revolutionary”

      No, to me it translates as ” I am a condescending, know-it-all prat ”.

      But that’s just me.

    • voegelinian says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 1:49 pm

      Anyone, such as the nonce commenter “barryt”, who uses the term “Islamism” sincerely as though it were useful and not grievously laughable and conducive to reckless endangerment in the battle space of our ongoing war of ideas, is already suspect; we then find other worrisome nuggets ensconced deep in his post, such as the clear implication that flows logically from that term, that ordinary mom-and-pop Muslim immigrants into the West are unobjectionable and hey, even ” trend to more conservative economic and cultural views.” When we in the Counter-Jihad speak of immigrants possibly benefiting our societies in the West, we are only speaking of non-Muslim immigrants. There are no “conservative… cultural views” of any Muslims on Earth that are of benefit to our societies; all their views, “conservative” or otherwise, pertain to a pernicious system that is now waging war on the free world and killing people, and portending more horrific mass-murders of us. No: individuals like “barryt” do not belong in the Counter-Jihad.

  22. Ha Meshuga says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 8:47 am

    This is the link to the page set up to raise funds for the defense of Neil Masterson, the man accused of attacking that PoS george galloway…please take a look, do what you can and share….Thank you…

    http://www.gofundme.com/dt35p0

    and some more background

    http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/09/01/online-crowdfunding-bid-made-pay-legal-bills-man-charged-george-galloway-assault

    • Mirren10 says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 11:49 am

      I loathe Galloway, and everything he stands for, but there is no way I would condone someone coming up to him and punching him in the face, repeatedly.

      You won’t be getting any contributions from me.

  23. Islam_Macht_Frei says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 9:13 am

    Islam is to multiculturalism as cancer is to biodiversity.

  24. Myxlplik says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 9:17 am

    These Multicultural extremists, still believe, even as their last view of the world topples end over end, heads in free fall. Their last view of life is dirt, headless shoulders, sky, then dirt. The end comes, last drops of blood spilling from their severed necks, as they contemplate their fate as martyrs for the suffering of Muslims at the sacrificial altar of Multiculturalism. They were heros for the cause, Shahids of the left.

  25. Dan says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 9:18 am

    http://www.islam-watch.org/AdrianMorgan/Winston-Churchill-Islamism.htm

  26. Boston Tea Party says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 9:24 am

    Absolutely brilliant, astute, concise summary of our current situation. For anyone still mystified or in denial about the leftist affinity for Islam, this piece explains it.

  27. Salah says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 9:47 am

    I agree on everything in this article, including the Global Warming hoax.
    There is no moderate Islam, there are Moderate/Secular/Nominal Muslims though. Given the right opportunity (Freedom/Knowledge), they will be the first to spit on the Qur’an.

    http://crossmuslims.blogspot.ca/2014/01/egyptian-muslims-tear-up-quran.html

  28. pongadae rex says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 9:50 am

    Any serious reading of human history will reveal multiculturalism for what it really is. It is a political movement based upon ‘magical thinking’. It is the arriving at conclusions in spite of countless verifiable facts that directly contradict the conclusions. It is a form of insanity. The dictates of multiculturalism, that facts contradicting pre-conceived conclusions are the result of ‘bigotry’ and ‘racism’, demonstrate it to be a form of brainwashing. In this, the ‘multicultural’ west joins totalitarian societies in enforcing ‘correct thinking’ based upon political fiat rather than logical reasoning.

  29. BaconPerfume says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 9:57 am

    This has to be one of the best commentaries about the left and their fairy tail belief about moderate Islam. Brilliant writing. Too bad the left are too stupid to grasp the content and truth it contains.

  30. gravenimage says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 10:16 am

    An early generation of Western leaders sought the affirmation of their national destinies in the divine. This generation of Western leaders seeks the affirmation of their secular liberalism in a moderate Islam.

    Even if they have to make it up.
    ………………………………………

    Truer words were never spoken…

    More:

    Without a moderate Islam the Socialist projects of Europe which depend on heavy immigration collapse. America’s War on Terror becomes the endless inescapable slog that the rise of ISIS has once again revealed it to be. Multiculturalism, post-nationalism and Third World Guiltism all implode.

    Without moderate Muslims, nationalism returns, borders close and the right wins. That is what they fear…
    ………………………………………

    *Absolutely*. Often when these dhimmi tools trot out the “religion of peace” meme following some horrific Jihad attack, some Anti-Jihadists will opine that they are doing it out of fear—i.e., that Muslims are directly threatening them.

    But in many cases things are not that far gone in the West yet—but they *are* right that this is about fear.

    It is about fear that their world view is at least partially incorrect—that perhaps the biggest danger *isn’t* the Tea Party, but just might be ravening Muslims beheading journalists or blowing up subway trains and bombing foot races.

    But they’ve used willful ignorance before—telling themselves that horrifying Communist regimes really aren’t so bad, or are even worth emulation; and that those on death row aren’t really homicidal criminals, but just misunderstood victims.

    After all, if they were able to swallow *those* ideas, then can Islam—even in the wake of mass sex slavery and genocide—really be that much harder?

    They fervently hope it won’t prove to be so—and so the assertion that there is a “moderate Islam” becomes more fervent and desperate all the time…

  31. nacazo says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 10:22 am

    Interesting ideas. I would think that one principle should be separation of the religious sphere from the governments. It’s uncoscionable that countries where we spent blood and purse have clauses in their constitutions that proclaim that “islamic law is the source of legislation”. I can see using religious extremists in case of a clear danger such as the soviet union but the government should not be spending money on mosques/madrassas/seminaries/etc. Otherwise, we eventually get Mohammed Attas.

    It should also be a tenet of foreign policy to remove links between religion and government in our allies. For example more religious freedom in Saudi Arabia.

    Also there should be more monitoring of religious institutions (i.e., mosques/islamic centers) and as soon as any sedition is identified and proved via judicial process, the institution should be closed and its assets confiscated.

    There should be better vetting for immigrants from muslim countries and citizens engaging in secitious activities should have stricter penalties (life without the possibility of parole would be my suggestion).

  32. nacazo says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 10:23 am

    the above was responding to BarryT

  33. nacazo says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 10:34 am

    If by multiculturalism you mean that all cultures are equally valuable, it’s a lie. It may be a useful lie in some academic areas but a lie nonetheless. If you are an anthropologist, you have to use that lie in order to extricate yourself from the field of study. So when you observe some cannibal eating his neighbor for breakfast, you lie to yourself that all cultures are equally valuable and keep taking notes for the upcoming paper on the cannibals of xxxxx. With a tight hand on the revolver of course.

  34. awake says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 11:00 am

    This just might be the greatest article I have ever read. It definitively answers the question as to why I cannot understand, why people cannot understand Islam.

  35. Muhammad Bear says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 11:57 am

    I don’t know how many of you blog on other sites that are less focused on anti-Jihad.

    I have had experience on such sites where there is less Taqiyya and more openness about Islam. Muslims will occasionally openly admit there is no moderate Islam and that they are fundamentalist.

    I had one private message me saying that there are no moderates, particularly in Britain.

  36. Henry says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 12:21 pm

    Spot on Mr. Greenfield! The myth of the ‘moderate Muslim’ has been utterly debunked.

  37. Anushirvan says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    The most scathing review of PC lunacy yet, hitting all the nails on the head. A brilliant piece by Greenfield, as usual.

  38. w says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 2:26 pm

    I think the west should outlaw Islam here, it is incompatible with western ideology. If people want it they can go back to the middle east. How would we ban Islam here. Is their the political will? Have enough liberals woken up now to the pandora’s box they have created and opened? We would have war and chaos until Islamics were rounded up , but after they were dropped off in the middle east we could get back to looking at solutions for what is left of the mess liberal /relativistic thinking has brought us.

    • nacazo says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 5:38 pm

      i don’t think we can ban islam because of the religious label it has (whether a mask or reality) since we have freedom of religion. we should take the approach taken during the cold war for freedom of association. yes, there was a communist party but it was monitored, and the minute one of its adherents did a sedititious act (e.g, spying for the soviet union, call for the overthrow of themgovernment) they were severely punished.

      As an example, you can have a religion that believes in human sacrifice but the moment they attempt to sacrifice someone, the perpetrators go to trial for attempted homicide.

  39. Arnold David says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 7:37 pm

    I agree with those who have written above trying to parse out the definitions of some key concepts discussed herein. In my view Greenfield commits the same tautological error that RS so often makes, that is, he condemns as multiculturalists who buy into the moderate Islam concept only the leftists, liberals, progressives (“LLPs”) in our western society, but he defines LLPs fundamentally as those multiculturalists who misunderstand Islam.

    LLP is not well-defined and I submit that any true definition focuses more on economic policy than it does on attitudes towards religions or cultural differences. While people of good faith could debate the definition, it is clearly tautological to defines as LLP as one who defends multiculturalism and the concept of a moderate Islam and in the next breath to condemn LLPs for defending multiculturalism and moderate Islam.
    I suspect there are a lot of conservatives, staunch capitalists, right wingers and traditionalists who are just as naïve about Islamic ideology as the LLP population.
    Framing the debate about the failure to condemn Islam and its inherent civil and human rights abuses into a left vs right framework is not an accurate reflection of sociopolitical attitudes. Moreover, it’s not the best strategy to effect a change of attitude of those who adhere to the moderate Islam myth. It only serves to alienate those who might consider themselves LLP. While there might be some debate about the cause of climate change, there should be no debate about the true nature of Islamic ideology. There is no need to create a false left vs right schism.

    • awake says

      Sep 4, 2014 at 9:12 pm

      @Arnold David,

      Your argument is a straw one. Daniel Greenfield was explicit in his article that, whether left or right, the malaise of moderate Islam is a pervasive concept derived by those who continue to embrace multiculturalism as a core ideological belief.

      This is not a remarkable statement by Greenfield, or Robert Spencer by any means.

      Besides the magnificent article by Greenfield, and posted by Spencer, illustrating this inexplicable, counter-intuitive phenomenon, Mr. Greenfield was kind enough to share his own clarifying comments to his article, in the comments section above, as to his summary reasoning.

      In short, it reads as a longing for a true left / right coalition in the counter-jihad movement, while pointing out that the “left”, to date, is completely bereft in that regard.

      Now, if you can draw a source of some substance to counter-argue Daniel’s and Robert’s position on this matter, this is the time and place to do so.

      We’re all ears, mate. Just give us one blog, at least!

      • arnold david says

        Sep 5, 2014 at 12:04 pm

        Says Greenfield:
        “The true moderate Muslims are secular liberals …”; and
        “The moderate Muslim is an invention of the liberal academic…”; and
        “The degraded lefty descendants of Christians and Jews wait for a moderate Muslim messiah …”

        Above, barryt wrote that:
        “I am not sure I agree completely that the multicultural mantra is mainly a problem or article of faith on the left. It seems to have pervaded our entire culture…”

        Greenfield replied to barryt saying:
        I would be happy to see a national unity Counterjihad, but right now the only unity I see is those on the “right” like Bush or Cameron echoing multicultural idiocies about Islam while shunning their own party members who tell the truth.
        Despite that there’s a voice for the Counterjihad in the political movements of the right. Can you honestly say the same for the political movements of the left?
        ………..
        Like barryt, I challenge the Greenfield construct that left and right are useful terms to employ when describing the failure to condemn Islamic ideology. You ask me to give proof that there is a disproportionate larger number of LLPs that buy into the myth of moderate Islam compared to those on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
        Firstly, neither you nor Greenfield defines what is leftist, liberal or progressive. Most would start with economic theory , but this is not at all discussed so the waters are muddy from the very beginning of discussion.

        Secondly, Greenfield doesn’t give the statistical evidence to support his assertion about this left – right divide, to wit, that there are is a greater ground swell of opposition to moderate Islam on the right. You ask me to give proof that there is plenty of anti-jihad forming on the LLP side, but no one has given statistical proof for the opposite proposition. It’s mere vague speculation. Why engage in it? Didn’t LLP, Obama, take out bin OBL? Why not just speak about the general failure throughout western culture to condemn Islamic ideology because of a false notion of politically correct multiculturalism.

  40. Hepcat says

    Sep 4, 2014 at 8:15 pm

    According to a Pew poll, http://tinyurl.com/ojh48yy 47% of Muslims in Bangladesh believe “suicide bombings can be often/sometimes justified against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies?”

    That makes over 61 million Muslims in that country alone who think blowing up civilians is just peachy.

    Bangladesh is too obscure a country for you? Try Great Britain. 21% of its Muslim populations justifies suicide bombings. http://tinyurl.com/ngjgtdx

    That’s 630,000 Muslims in GB who are okay will blowing up infidels.

  41. nh says

    Sep 5, 2014 at 6:10 pm

    I think there will be many on the left who would at least be ready to hear and consider this, however the bit about global warming, they will be happy to read as they will now be able to dismiss the rest somewhat… even though there is no definitive proof and much of the evidence can be contradicted it shouldn’t be altogether dismissed as lunacy… while I think its fair to say and should be said as it is fact the lefts mentality is blatantlying obviously grotesquely iconic and it is inexcusable to say these people are just ignorant … but it’s just not the same with global warming they are not all stupid and basically insulting their intelligence wasn’t helpfull … but oh gawd they really can be a frustratingly nauseating pack of flakes

  42. Lloyd Miller says

    Sep 6, 2014 at 7:21 am

    Some Conservatives promote this “moderate” Islam too. I just listened to confused Sean Hannity.

  43. Tim says

    Sep 7, 2014 at 9:04 am

    when is the last time you heard the Left mention the “proletariat “? As usual the Left simply changes the word(s) when their stuff doesn’t pan out. Today’s proletariat are moderate Muslims.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • Walter Sieruk on Iranian top dogs approve bill to end UN nuclear inspections, increase enrichment
  • Dude on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • Infidel on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • Infidel on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • Mojdeh on Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.