• 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

Muslim prof in The Atlantic hits “the phony Islam” of the Islamic State

Feb 27, 2015 5:00 pm By Robert Spencer

dagli-canerI’ve noted several times lately that the Western intelligentsia is deeply concerned that you have a positive view of Islam — hence the steady barrage of articles explaining that those masked men brandishing Qur’ans and screaming “Allahu akbar” as they saw off Infidel heads don’t really have anything, anything at all, to do with the belief system that they name as their guiding inspiration and motivation.

Also, the Arbiters of Acceptable Opinion were deeply shaken by Graeme Wood’s piece in the March edition of The Atlantic, explaining why “the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic.” All the recent exonerations of Islam that I’ve discussed here at Jihad Watch — by Juan Cole, Haroon Moghul in Salon, and Loren Thompson in Forbes — and others have discussed and dismissed it. I said this about Wood’s article when it first came out: “In any case, this is a momentous article: it may (may) represent a crack in the edifice, a blade of grass poking through the concrete, a tardy surrender of at least one bastion of politically correct wishful thinking to the overwhelming force of reality. We shall see.” The academic and media elites clearly agree, and are accordingly circling the wagons and opening full rhetorical fire on Wood.

This latest apologia for Islam also hits Wood, and appears, as did his piece, in The Atlantic — a bit of penance, perhaps, from The Atlantic’s editors for straying off the reservation: “Won’t happen again, folks, see? Here’s a piece by Muslim academic Caner K. Dagli explaining how Wood is wrong. Now will you stop disinviting us from the best parties?”

Caner K. Dagli is associate professor of religious studies at the College of the Holy Cross, and yet another in an apparently endless stream of arrogant, rude, hostile, condescending, and hate-filled Islamic supremacists. In this piece, despite its title, he never quite gets around to explaining why the Islamic State’s Islam is “phony,” but he generates a lot of smoke and fog to make you think he has: “The Phony Islam of ISIS,” by Caner K. Dagli, The Atlantic, February 27, 2015:

Following the publication of his Atlantic cover story, “What ISIS Really Wants,” Graeme Wood has challenged critics who claim that he misrepresented Islamic belief, noting, “It’s instructive to see how responses to my piece reckon with or ignore this line: ‘Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do.’” But Wood’s entire essay implies that such a rejection of ISIS by other Muslims can only be hypocritical or naive, and that ISIS members and supporters follow the texts of Islam as faithfully and seriously as anyone.

When one is dealing on the level of implications, he has already departed from serious analysis, but taking Dagli seriously here, there are other options. If Wood is right that the Islamic State is following Islamic texts and teachings, a rejection of the Islamic State by other Muslims need not mean that they’re either hypocritical or naive. They could have a different interpretation of the relevant texts. Or they could be ignorant of the relevant teachings.

Dagli also complains that Wood’s essay “implies” that “ISIS members and supporters follow the texts of Islam as faithfully and seriously as anyone,” which it doesn’t actually “imply,” but states straight out. Dagli apparently finds this very suggestion offensive. One wonders what he is doing within his Muslim community to counter the Islamic State’s understanding of Islam — or is he saving all his venom for non-Muslims like Wood who dare to notice that the Islamic State jihadis can and do cite the Qur’an to justify their actions?

The main expert in Wood’s article is Princeton University professor Bernard Haykel, who “regards the claim that the Islamic State has distorted the texts of Islam as preposterous, sustainable only through willful ignorance. … In Haykel’s estimation, the fighters of the Islamic State are authentic throwbacks to early Islam and are faithfully reproducing its norms of war.”

Put another way: Not only are Muslims wrong that ISIS is distorting Islamic texts, but the very idea is preposterous. ISIS is faithfully following Islamic norms of war. All of this might lead a thoughtful reader to wonder what all the other Muslims are doing.

Indeed — what I wonder is, what is Dagli doing, and what are other Muslims who reject the Islamic State doing, to keep young Muslims from getting the idea that the Islamic State is right and trying to join it? Does he expect them to read The Atlantic? Or is he more interested in making non-Muslims, rather than Muslims, believe that the Islamic State is un-Islamic?

* * *

Wood quotes Haykel’s invocation of an axiom, common in academic discourse, that there is no such thing as ‘Islam,’ rather, “It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts.” Presumably Wood does this in order to emphasize that he is not personally offering a criterion to judge who is a good or bad Muslim. But he introduces just such a criterion: namely, that a Muslim is evaluated according to his or her interpretation of these texts. His article evaluates ISIS against other Muslims on this basis.

“What’s striking about [ISIS] is not just the literalism, but also the seriousness with which they read these texts,” Haykel said. “There is an assiduous, obsessive seriousness that Muslims don’t normally have.”

But who decides who takes the texts seriously? On what grounds do non-Muslim journalists and academics tell Muslims that their judgment that ISIS does not take a full and fair view of the Quran and Sunnah (the example and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) amounts to a “cotton-candy” view of Islam, while these non-Muslims retain the right to judge how “serious” ISIS is in its understanding of core Islamic texts?

How about this: when Muslims who judge that the Islamic State doesn’t take a full and fair view of the Qur’an and Sunnah fail to mention significant texts that the Islamic State uses to justify its actions, is one permitted to question their seriousness? Tahir ul-Qadri’s vaunted 300-page fatwa against terrorism doesn’t even mention the passages of the Qur’an that exhort believers to violence against unbelievers. Is that really a “serious” attempt to dissuade Muslims from joining such groups? And the much-touted recent “Letter to Baghdadi” from Muslim scholars to the self-styled caliph of the Islamic State endorsed central concepts of jihad doctrine that Western analysts usually think are limited only to “extremists” — is that a “serious” attempt to turn Muslims away from “extremism”?

If we take the “It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts” axiom seriously, then there would be no grounds to declare that a Muslim who believes in a pantheon of gods is unfaithful to the teachings of Islam. After all, the Quran, speaking with the Divine Voice, often uses the royal “We” when addressing Muslims. Would this belief in multiple gods also be ‘Islam’? Would these polytheistic Muslims have “just as much legitimacy as anyone else” because they are drawing on the same texts as other Muslims?

Can we extend the axiom of “There is no X, there is only what followers of X do and how they interpret their texts” beyond Islam? If a scientist claims, “Eugenics is not a valid application of the principles of science, and is unscientific,” should he expect to be told that the eugenicists were “just as legitimate as anyone else” because they are following the same body of texts? Were not the eugenicists “serious” and “assiduous” in their science, at least in their own eyes? Did they not speak the language of science, and base themselves on Darwin?

Dagli’s point here is that quoting the Qur’an and invoking Muhammad’s example doesn’t make the Islamic State legitimately Islamic, for there could theoretically arise a group that quotes the Qur’an to propose doctrines that stand in flat contradiction to other statements of the Qur’an. That’s a reasonable point, but it only has weight if he can establish that the Islamic State is contradicting clear teachings of Islam — for that, read on. Meanwhile, note that Dagli is here committing the crime of “essentialism”: he is clearly positing that Islam is and is not certain things, contradicting Juan Cole (whom he no doubt considers an ally), who excoriates “Islamophobes” for daring to think that Islam stands for and teaches anything in particular.

The charge of “essentialism” is generally leveled against foes of jihad terror who note that all the sects of Islam and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers: it’s simplistic and wrong, we’re told, to say that Islam teaches certain things and doesn’t teach others — as Reza Aslan says, Islam and all other religions can be “molded and shaped into whatever form a worshiper requires.” This is, of course, nonsense — religions do teach certain things and cultivate certain attitudes, and Dagli is affirming that here, no doubt without realizing that in doing so he is doing what others have been charged with “Islamophobia” for doing.

Will Cole and Aslan read him out of the club of those with approved opinions? Of course not, for their silly logic-chopping and Dagli’s contradiction of it both serve the same purpose: to exonerate Islam from all responsibility for the crimes done in its name and in accord with its teachings.

In fact, no one acknowledges that all interpretations of their own system of ultimate meaning are equally authentic or faithful, whether this system is scientism, communism, post-modernism, or any other metaphysical commitment including religion. It is arbitrary to present the Islamic interpretative tradition as an unrestricted free-for-all where nothing is assessed on objective rational or moral criteria, in which every last impulse or assertion is equal to all other responses and can never be subjected to judgment or ranking.

Indeed. I couldn’t agree more. So it is up to Dagli now to establish that his interpretation of Islam is more authentic and faithful to the texts than that of the Islamic State, or to specify on what he bases his “objective rational or moral criteria,” if not on those texts.

* * *

What other Muslims have been arguing from the start is that ISIS does not take the texts seriously.

The Quran is a single volume, roughly the length of the New Testament. It is a complex and nuanced text that deals with legal, moral, and metaphysical questions in a subtle and multifaceted way. Then there are the hadīth, or records of sayings and doings of the Prophet Muhammad, which run into dozens of volumes spanning literally hundreds of thousands of texts, each on average a few sentences long. Then there is the juridical and theological literature about the Quran and the hadīth, which consists of thousands of works written throughout Islamic history.

Does ISIS cite “texts”? Yes, though its main method is to cite individual ḥadīth that support its positions. But remember: The ḥadīth consist of hundreds of thousands of discrete items that range from faithfully transmitted teachings to outright fabrications attributed to the Prophet, and every gradation in between.

If Dagli means to say here that the Islamic State is citing hadith that are “outright fabrications,” he should provide an example. He doesn’t.

Over the centuries, jurists and theologians of every stripe, Sunni and Shiite, have devised rational, systematic methods for sifting through ḥadīth, which are often difficult to understand or seem to say contrary things about the same questions.

This is because they do say contradictory things about the same questions, since the hadith literature was fabricated by rival factions inventing sayings of Muhammad to justify their own positions, this is to be expected. For example, in some hadiths Muhammad forbids killing women and children, but another says: “It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.” (Muslim 4321) That is, it is permissible to kill the women and children, because they are of the pagans.

They have ranked and classified these texts according to how reliable they are, and have used them accordingly in law and theology. But ISIS does not do this. Its members search for text snippets that support their argument, claim that these fragments are reliable even if they are not, and disregard all contrary evidence—not to mention Islam’s vast and varied intellectual and legal tradition. Their so-called “prophetic methodology” is nothing more than cherry-picking what they like and ignoring what they do not.

Can we please have an example of the Islamic State doing this — citing a hadith that Muslim scholars consider inauthentic and disregarding contradictory texts? Not from Caner K. Dagli.

“Lacing” one’s conversation with religious imagery is easy. Mastering a vast textual tradition is hard.

So also, apparently, is citing examples to buttress one’s argument.

Furthermore, it is past time to dispense with the idea that organizations like ISIS are “literalist” in their reading of texts. Do the members of ISIS believe, literally, “Wheresoever you turn, there is the face of God?” Of course not. Nor would they interpret literally, “God is the light of the heavens and the earth,” or any number of other passages from the Quran that the so-called “literalists” are compelled to either ignore or read as some kind of metaphor or allegory. I’d like to see ISIS offer a “literal” interpretation of the ḥadīth that says that when God loves a person, He “becomes the ear with which he hears, the eye with which he sees, the hand with which he grasps, and the foot with which he walks.”

Great, but none of this does anything to establish that the Islamic State is misreading passages such as “slay the polytheists wherever you find them” (Qur’an 9:5; cf. 2:191, 4:89).

What distinguishes the interpretive approach of groups like ISIS from others is not its literalism (Sufis are indeed the most “literal” of all such interpreters of the Quran) but its narrowness and rigidity; for the adherents of ISIS, the Quran means exactly one thing, and other levels of meaning or alternate interpretations are ruled out a priori. This is not literalism. It is exclusivism.

Fine. Maybe the Islamic State is wrong to rule out interpretations of the Qur’an besides its own. But does its doing so mean that its interpretation is wrong? Dagli has still not established it.

Wood expands on his impression of the religious seriousness of ISIS fighters by pointing out that they speak in coded language, which in reality consists of “specific traditions and texts of early Islam.” Speeches are “laced with theological and legal discussion.” But there is a wide chasm between someone who “laces” his conversations with religious imagery (very easy) and someone who has actually studied and understood the difficulties and nuances of an immense textual tradition (very hard). I personally know enough Shakespeare to “lace” my conversations with quotations from Hamlet and the sonnets. Does that make me a serious Shakespeare scholar? I can “code” my language with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, but is that proof of my assiduousness in relation to the Bard?

This is just a red herring. Wood actually pointed out specifics regarding the Islamic State’s use of the Qur’an: “Exempted from automatic execution, it appears, are Christians who do not resist their new government. Baghdadi permits them to live, as long as they pay a special tax, known as the jizya, and acknowledge their subjugation. The Koranic authority for this practice is not in dispute.” And: “The Koran specifies crucifixion as one of the only punishments permitted for enemies of Islam. The tax on Christians finds clear endorsement in the Surah Al-Tawba, the Koran’s ninth chapter, which instructs Muslims to fight Christians and Jews ‘until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.’ The Prophet, whom all Muslims consider exemplary, imposed these rules and owned slaves.”

Notice that when he quotes Wood, Dagli doesn’t include those passages. So, Professor, does the Qur’an specify this tax upon Christians, as the hallmark of their subjugation, or does it not? If not, how are the Islamic State jihadis misusing the Qur’anic passage in question? We aren’t going to find out from Caner K. Dagli.

Dagli goes on to quibble at great length about the meaning of the term “un-Islamic” and its applicability to the Islamic State, and then begins to complain that the real problem is that anyone might be concerned about Islam:

“The only principled ground that the Islamic State’s opponents could take is to say that certain core texts and traditional teachings of Islam are no longer valid,” Bernard Haykel says. That really would be an act of apostasy.

In my experience, many Muslims are upset by articles like this not because their feelings are hurt, but because such arguments fill them with dread. They worry about what might happen to a religious or ethnic group that policymakers or the public believe to be intrinsically and uniquely dangerous.

When extremist groups like ISIS commit an atrocity or make the news, politicians and commentators inevitably lament how Muslims are not doing enough to “speak out” against the crimes carried out in their name. But when Muslims do “speak out” and “condemn,” as they always have, this seems to only reinforce the tendency to blame Muslims collectively. And if one relies on Wood and Haykel, and believes that the horrors perpetrated by ISIS are “plainly” in Islam’s sacred texts and that it is “preposterous” to argue that these texts are being distorted, then the notion that a faithful Muslim could be critiquing ISIS in a moral and rational fashion is discarded. He can only be a sympathizer, a hypocrite, or a dupe who is ignorant of the requirements of his own faith. Wood’s essay leaves readers with a gnawing fear that the majority of Muslims might wake up tomorrow and start taking their texts “seriously.”

All of this puts Muslims in a double bind: If they just go about their lives, they stand condemned by those who demand that Muslims “speak out.” But if they do speak out, they can expect to be told that short of declaring their sacred texts invalid, they are fooling themselves or deceiving the rest of us. Muslims are presented with a brutal logic in which the only way to truly disassociate from ISIS and escape suspicion is to renounce Islam altogether.

Dagli leaves out one possibility: he could be a sincere, genuine reformer, acknowledging that the Islamic State is working from core traditions and mainstream understandings of Islam, and declaring that these have to be confronted and changed. Condemnation and speaking out aren’t enough — Muslims in unprecedented numbers are traveling from the West to join the Islamic State. In light of that, articles like Dagli’s appear particularly cynical and deceptive: his house is on fire, and he is complaining that someone has the temerity to ask him to help put it out.

And so the fire will continue to rage.

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: academia, Featured, Islamic reform, Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL, Daesh), Jihad doctrine, journalistic bias, Moderate Muslims, War is deceit Tagged With: Caner K. Dagli, Graeme Wood


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Jay Boo says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    The real Islam
    Debate between Pastor joseph and Omar Bakri

    • mortimer says

      Feb 27, 2015 at 9:57 pm

      REAL ISLAM? Ha! The Koran is said to be ‘mubeen’ (clear) and therefore, easy to understand, but it apparently is so conflicted and confusing that only a specialist scholar with 15 to 20 years of study can understand it. This is what Caner K. Dagli is telling us.

      David Wood recently lampooned this foolish argument which claims: “The Islamic tradition is the opposite of what it seems to say, because Allah doesn’t mean what he says.”

      Caner K. Dagli is telling us that Allah is impossibly obtuse and that even a PhD like Caliph al Baghdadi cannot understand Islam with the help of the canonical interpreters of the Islamic consensus (ijma).

      Watch these Islamic apologists pull themselves apart trying to reconcile that canonical scholars may be wrong, but Islam is still true!

      Caner K. Dagli is telling us basically that A ≠ A and that Islam has NOTHING to do with Islam.

      Only Caner K. Dagli knows what Islam teaches, but he is unable to say what that teaching is. Ha!

      • silvergreycat says

        Feb 28, 2015 at 12:54 am

        *…David Wood recently lampooned this foolish argument which claims: “The Islamic tradition is the opposite of what it seems to say, because Allah doesn’t mean what he says.”* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEKhq8nHbA8

      • Vinodgupt says

        Feb 28, 2015 at 10:35 pm

        Those who claim the Koran to be difficult to comprehend have a very opinion of Allah. Everyone knows that Muhammad was illiterate and All-knowing Allah must have known this. Then why would reveal to an illiterate man who will not be able to understand what has been revealed to him?

        • mortimer says

          Mar 1, 2015 at 5:22 am

          Muslims claim that Mohammed was ‘illiterate’ because the word ‘ummi’ is ambiguous. Does it mean ‘illiterate’ or ‘unscriptured’ (i.e. a ‘non-scriptuary’, someone without a holy book like the Bible)? Scholars now believe the latter. Hadiths describe Mohammed as writing and asking for writing materials. It appears he could write and therefore read. We may even be wrong to assume Mohammed wrote the Koran or that he was one person. No one can tell.

          Mohammed never bothered to collate his sermon notes because he knew they were contradictory. Whatever Hajjaj didn’t like in the writings of Mohammed, he destroyed and substituted verse that helped his boss, Caliph abd al Malik.

          The early history of Islam has so many unanswered questions that almost nothing can be known. The anomalies of Islam are so huge, it is evidence of many re-writes and coverups. The caliphs didn’t worry about the anomalies, because they were semi-literate warriors and scheming politicians. Most Arabs didn’t read and copies of the Koran, hadiths and Sira were only available to government-approved scholars.

  2. lebel says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 5:14 pm

    “They could have a different interpretation of the relevant texts.”

    Yes but an interpretation, as you are always keen to point out, with no basis in Islam itself.

    • Jay Boo says

      Feb 27, 2015 at 5:21 pm

      How nice that there are (peaceful) Muslims who wish only to PROTECT us even as they ‘cast us the evil eye’.
      Reality:
      Islam is a shameless ‘protection’ racket that intimidates others to pay the Qur’an-mandated tax with willing submission.
      Most Muslims might not be actively committing such deeds, but this is most definitely in their cultural and religious DNA which is why they will always at a minimum at least look the other way.

      Case in point Muslims come to the ‘rescue’ to form a circle holding hands and surround a recently attacked synagogue in Denmark, supposedly to combat Islamophobia.
      http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/21/us-norway-muslims-jews-idUSKBN0LP0AG20150221

      also more jizya
      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/03/hamas-mp-we-must-massacre-jews-make-the-rest-pay-the-jizya

      • WhatsHisName says

        Feb 28, 2015 at 4:41 pm

        look at that Oslo hands around the Synagoge it was 20-people..there were more media there..it was a psyop stunt ..look at the guy in the right of the image he as he;s hands in his pocket..no enougth to form a chain

  3. Wellington says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 5:27 pm

    Fine rebuttal by Robert Spencer. Reading through it what crossed my mind most was what other religion has to jump through so may metaphorical hoops to justify its peacefullness and tolerance—–and all the while so many of that religon’s fellow adherents are either themselves highly violent or highly intolerant or at least support such violence and intolerance? I mean do Methodists and Buddhist monks have article after article, book after book published trying to convince the world how wonderful, noble, peaceful and tolerant their respective religion is all the while Methodist suicide bombers are all over the place and many Buddhist monks have formed a Buddhist State which is wiping out people left and right and Methodists and Buddhists in bunches support such havoc?

    Islam is unique in this regard and this is telling and damning. Let the cover-up continue for it surely will, courtesy of fools and deceivers. But people, loads and loads of people, are catching on that Islam is like no other religion on earth and that it is, in effect, spiritual fascism. After all, parsing words can get very tedious after a while, especially when accompanied by lots of maimed and dead bodies.

    • jihad3tracker says

      Feb 27, 2015 at 7:42 pm

      Hello again Wellington —

      Our astonishing 24/7 counter-jihadist Bobby “The Kid” Spencer goes into the ring one more time against another taqiyya slinging Muslim. But if you or other deeply knowledgeable commenters at Jihad Watch want to give Mr. Dagli YOUR OWN REFUTATION OF HIS REMARKS, this is a contact path : cdagli@holycross.edu.

      BTW — Confidential !! Don’t tell anyone: New sluggers in the Islam-Reality Prize Fight (like Jocelyn Cesari a couple of weeks ago) are ventriloquist dummies sitting on the lap of John Esposito and the Prince Alwaleed Saudi $$$$ foundation for “Muslim – Christian” dialogue.

      In comparison to Esposito’s damage-control nightmare after Graeme Wood’s flabbergastingly accurate Atlantic piece & his consequential huddle with apologists competent enough at crooked logic and rhetorical misdirection, the wipe-out Pompeian volcano is a mere teenage face zit.

      • Wellington says

        Feb 27, 2015 at 8:22 pm

        Thanks both for the e-mail address, jihad3tracker, and for your clever commentary. I will indeed contact Dagli at the e-mail address you have provided (and such contact will even be polite though there’s a part of my nature which would favor otherwise).

        Interesting, even stunning, the lengths to which apoligists, whether Muslim or dhimmi, whether deceivers or ignoramuses, will go to in order to exculpate a belief system which should have been assigned a long time ago to the trash heap of history.

        Mankind can sometimes achieve great things, like sending our species to the Moon or creating such a magnificent document as the Constitution of the United States of America. Then again, mankind can sometimes do horrible things, like letting a gang of thugs in Hitler and his cronies get a hold of a great nation, or actually give respect and deference to a seventh-century psychopath, narcissist and pedophile who came from the Arabian peninsula and who founded a most warped and disturbing belief system, including one which views alcohol as an enemy (for me, this is where Islam gets real personal like). Oh yeah, definitely and for sure, it’s a mix bag. Mankind on occasion gets things right (e.g., democracy born in ancient Athens) and sometimes wrong (e.g., Islam).

        Hope you and yours are well. Take care, pal. Now, back to the fight of our times, which should never be given up upon because being dead is far preferable to being ruled by Muslims. No contest I would argue.

    • WhatsHisName says

      Feb 28, 2015 at 4:50 pm

      well said Jay Boo…its a pathetic evil religion..it was invented by Satan to try to destroy Jesus ..”fear not when they hate you without cause,remember (satan )they hated first..”….they are so bancrupt they steal everyone elases religion..or relgoius polaces…they even claim only a muslim is living the true christian life…

  4. Jaladhi says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 5:45 pm

    Looks like there is an army of liars on the attack for Muslims and Islam. These people have no conscience, no morality and are behaving like barbarians themselves!

    • Jaladhi says

      Feb 27, 2015 at 5:50 pm

      And by just saying that ISIS is not Islamic, Islam is not going become peaceful or will be reformed!! How stupid and deceitful are these so called intelligentsia is??

      • mortimer says

        Feb 27, 2015 at 10:13 pm

        Caner K. Dagli merely argues from his academic authority without defining how his unspecified version of ‘Islam’ is more peaceful than the ISIS version of Islam.

        Caner K. Dagli did not define what ‘peaceful’ or non-jihadic Islam is. Is there such a non-jihadic or ‘less-jihadic’ version of Islam? If normative, Sunnite Islam has a caliph who commands jihad (it does), why is ISIS not Islamic? ISIS is following Sharia law precisely.

        Caner K. Dagli is actually denouncing jihad and the Sharia law definitions of jihad and most of Chapter 9 of the Koran, all of the Sira, ibn Taymiyya and ibn Kathir and many other canonical scholars.

        Caner K. Dagli appears to have his own subjective version of Islam…or Islam à la carte!

  5. Angemon says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 6:22 pm

    But who decides who takes the texts seriously? On what grounds do non-Muslim journalists and academics tell Muslims that their judgment that ISIS does not take a full and fair view of the Quran and Sunnah (the example and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) amounts to a “cotton-candy” view of Islam, while these non-Muslims retain the right to judge how “serious” ISIS is in its understanding of core Islamic texts?

    OK buddy, let’s be consistent here: on what grounds people like Obama or Cameron tell muslims (and non-muslims. OK, mostly non-muslims) that ISIS’s understanding of core Islamic texts is wrong?

    If we take the “It’s what Muslims do, and how they interpret their texts” axiom seriously, then there would be no grounds to declare that a Muslim who believes in a pantheon of gods is unfaithful to the teachings of Islam.

    Isn’t he? How does that go? “There’s no god but allah and muhammad is the messenger of allah”. Doesn’t islam teach that ascribing partners to allah is the worst of all sins? Aren’t polytheists on a muslim-ruled country not given the choice to keep practicing their religion? Which school of islam teaches that there’s more than one god?

    The Quran is a single volume, roughly the length of the New Testament. It is a complex and nuanced text that deals with legal, moral, and metaphysical questions in a subtle and multifaceted way.

    And it does all these “complexities”, “nuances” and “subtleties” while claiming to be clear and precise.

    Do the members of ISIS believe, literally, “Wheresoever you turn, there is the face of God?” Of course not.

    And you know that how? Have you conversed with ALL members of the islamic state?

    • WhatsHisName says

      Feb 28, 2015 at 4:59 pm

      we i have brought my ‘AMERICAN ISLAM’ FRANCHISE…WE SELL… PEACE TOLLERNCE PATRIOTISM DEMOCRACTIC VALUES…REMEMBER KIDS IF DOESNT FIT INTO THE ‘NEW AMERICA ISLAM’ BRAND ITS NOT THE REAL ITEM..

      SO ALWAYS DEMAND THE BEST ALWAYS DEMAND ‘AMERICAN ISLAM’..AS ADVERTIZED IN REPUTIBLE MEDIA OUTLETS

      SO BUY INTO ‘AMERICAN ISLAM’ YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE….

  6. Sam says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 6:50 pm

    OK. Can anybody show me, Muslim or infidel, where this wonderful Islam is?

  7. profitsbeard says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 6:53 pm

    Funny how Mohammad, the very first Muslim, completely misunderstood Islam, too.

    How do these scholars explain that?

    • Jay Boo says

      Feb 27, 2015 at 10:18 pm

      funny
      Maybe the Islamic scholar Ben Affleck will try to explain that one.

    • mortimer says

      Mar 1, 2015 at 5:29 am

      profit wrote: “Funny how Mohammad, the very first Muslim, completely misunderstood Islam, too. How do these scholars explain that?”

      They photoshop Mohammed and create fanciful biographies in which Mohammed rivals Mother Theresa in kindness.

  8. vlparker says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 7:21 pm

    ISIS is not in France and the UK. At least they aren’t running those countries (yet). So what is the difference between ISIS and the killer of Lee Rigby or the Charlie Hebdo killers? Are they unislamic too?
    What about the jihadists in India and Myanmar and Thailand and Chechnya and Indonesia and the Philippines and Nigeria and on and on and on and on? How many unislamic muslims shouting “allahu akhbar” killers are there

  9. Demsci says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 7:48 pm

    Caner Dagli //”All of this puts Muslims in a double bind: If they just go about their lives, they stand condemned by those who demand that Muslims “speak out.” But if they do speak out, they can expect to be told that short of declaring their sacred texts invalid, they are fooling themselves or deceiving the rest of us.”//

    It IS about their sacred texts that they intend to live by, that they will be challenged, yes.

    But I think they have options; I. That “Islam is clear” and that there is only “one Islam”. And they will be very hard put to deny that ISIS is practicing that one Islam, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, David Wood, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Graeme Woods, and many others will make sure of that. And so yes, that position will indeed put them in the position of either joining ISIS or declaring their own sacred texts invalid.

    Or II. That Islam is NOT CLEAR. They could say this in some polite way, like Reza Aslan does. That is that the controversial essential Islamic texts in Quran-Sunnah are Ambiguous, Vague, Incomplete, Obsolete, Contradicting at times. Alas, very prone to misunderstanding in totalitarian and violent ways.

    But THAT also means MULTI-Interpretable! That could be the rescue for many Muslims. NOW they deny that Islam a la ISIS is the true Islam and they pretend that somehow the true Islam is harmless, but they never explain why fully!

    But if Islam’s relevant controversial texts are multi-interpretable, they could try to formulate an interpretation of these texts that is compatible with democracy and human rights.

    Once they have formulated a “democratic interpretation of Islam”, then they could proceed to form a new subgroup of “democratic Muslims” or “New Muslims” or whatever.

    With this group they could establish membership-criteria, and they could set up a leadership that can refuse or withdraw membership of this new organisation to Muslims who do not concur with the “democratic interpretation”.

    In stark contrast to “old Islam” which has almost no “membership-criteria” and who won’t evict any members on any grounds.

    And THIS is not what Westerners should REQUEST, maybe DEMAND, from Muslims. And when refusal of this follows, then Westerners can reasonably start to “discriminate” Muslims and refuse entry to new Muslim immigrants,

    on the grounds of their choice of the religion that has irresponsible UNCLEAR, INCOMPLETE etc. most sacred texts telling people to live by. With the known effect of millions of totalitarian, patriarchalistic and violent followers, and thousands of terrorist acts, done in the name of Islam.

    • Demsci says

      Feb 27, 2015 at 7:49 pm

      correction, “and THIS is INDEED what Westerners should request, maybe demand, from Muslims”

  10. Bezelel says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 8:24 pm

    ( Muslims are presented with a brutal logic in which the only way to truly disassociate from ISIS and escape suspicion is to renounce Islam altogether.) I’m not a Shakespeare scholar either but, To be or not to be wasting your life trying to make chicken salad out of chicken sh!t or find an ounce of integrity and renounce islam.

  11. gfmucci says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 8:26 pm

    He sounds like either an apostate (in which case he could be in danger of having his head lopped off) or is in taqiyya mode, in which case he is being a deceiver on behalf of the real orthodox Islam, which the jihadists tend to be.

  12. JR says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 9:01 pm

    This is a stupid debate. History does NOT support the many claims made by Muslims, including the alleged accuracy of their texts. This means, like Christianity, Islam is a fabrication, created and written by adherents to support whatever views they wanted to endorse. The discussion of “which text” can be considered properly interpreted is therefore, totally meaningless. Islam is a fabrication just like Christianity.

    Anybody that claims otherwise needs to examine the historical record. There is nothing “holy” about the Quran (or the Bible). All such claims are patently false as the historical record will show. Alterations, additions, deletions, omissions and contradictions abound. Supposedly, God is the author for this confusion, but the reality is men wrote the words and contradicted each other. Later, they modified the texts to suit their needs.

    Fundamentalist religions are exceedingly dangerous, because they insist that they are right by violence, and they deny reality and even history. They refuse examination and all the evidence that disproves their chosen position, which makes them liars to boot. Talk about “sin”. Fundementalist or “radical” Islam (or Christians) are all liars, deceivers and very evil, embracing ignorance, denial, distrust, hatred and even genocide.

    The world needs to abolish fundamentalism and all radical religions. There is absolutely no question of this requirement. Tolerance is NOT the answer because this breeds apathy and indifference. Any tolerance of fundamentalist religions opens up avenues of human rights abuse and clearly, this should not be tolerated by anyone, anywhere.

    • Demsci says

      Feb 28, 2015 at 1:38 am

      JR, Interesting diagnose. But when you proceed to some sort of solution, you take a sort of “negative approach”. I mean; you want to “get rid” of some bad attitudes and the people who embody them.

      But in doing so, you care only or primarily for the “absence” of these attitudes in the other humans. But not for the “presence” of better attitudes of the others. You want to get rid of Muslims and other radicals, but name those left supposedly “NON-Muslims”, “NON-Radicals”, with a lot of, well, “moderates”. But in that “mass” there are also all these Political Correct People, ignorant, yet defending Islam and Muslims against “us” every chance they get.

      The Muslims themselves have, with all their faults, this “positive approach”; they hold that Muslims do have this “wonderful faith, ordained and rewarded by Allah”. And that the rest of mankind is “bereft” of it; LACKING it, Kuffars, heathens.

      I like the “positive approach”. I like us to come up with a definition of who WE are, or strive to be, of e, of what WE like, of what WE are in favor of, of what WE believe in.

      And you pointed out something already; we believe in truthseeking, science, rational thinking, also in honesty. And I add that we are in favor of democracy, the golden rule, human rights. And we can think of more.

      And the Muslims, well, they are non-believers in THAT, or at the very best, confused about that. It is my wish that our sort of people expand in numbers, at the cost of both Muslims and all those neutrals.

      I too am atheist and I did not address the situation of Christians because my beloved family has many of them and I do not think that Christians present any big obstacles for my “positive approach”.

  13. No Fear says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 11:36 pm

    Mein Kampf and Hitler’s behaviour and words have nothing to do with Nazism.

  14. No Fear says

    Feb 27, 2015 at 11:47 pm

    It’s time for Islam to “get back to the original teachings” of its founder Mohammed?

    Now that is a scary thought…..

    Hopefully any reformation of Islam will completely omit anything to do with thief , mass murderer and pimp Mohammed.

  15. Baucent says

    Feb 28, 2015 at 7:37 am

    Counter-Islamists are making a tactical error in engaging in an argument over whether the Jihadi terrorists like ISIS and Boko Haram “are Islamic”. That simply gives an opportunity for apologists and academics to play a game of darting and dodging around the texts. The end result is they cannot be pinned down.

    Here is how the argument should be presented; “The Terrorists ISIS are Muslims”. That fact cannot be disputed as the threshold level for being a muslim is low. Anyone who believes “there is no God but Allah and Mohamed is his prophet” IS A MUSLIM. And no scholar would or could deny that fact.

    So shift away from defining Islam, to identifying the Terrorist as Muslims. That then pins them down. Having pinned down the problem, the argument can advance to the next stage which is “What are you other muslims going to do about it?”.

    • Demsci says

      Feb 28, 2015 at 8:44 am

      //“What are you other muslims going to do about it?”//

      Oh, nothing of any consequence, them not seeing the need to do ANYTHING essential;

      they are still partly in denial about that, absurdly even accusing Israel and America of being behind ISIS. But if they acknowledge that the terrorists are Muslims, they will COMPARE and quote examples of “radical elements, violent members among other religions”.

      They will say ad nauseam that we “should not paint all muslims with the same brush”.

      They will not admit that being a Muslim is a choice for which he/she has to take responsibility.

      And the majority of the ignorant, fair-play minded Democratic citizens of the West supports them in various parts of the above.

      but look, Baucent, we humans have constitution, laws, guiding texts.These are clear. and when not can be talked about and improved.

      Muslims have Quran-Sunnah. These they consider immutable. But that makes them hopelessly obsolete, incomplete, ambiguous, contradictory and VAGUE.

      What if there arose THIS problem;
      A. An irresponsibly vague, incomplete, ambiguous text was adopted by a large number people as upper guiding texts.
      B. When that vague text was easily interpretable in divers ways.
      C. and one of those ways was inciting to violence, totalitarianism etc.
      D. and then, using those texts large numbers of their followers would behave, very frequently, in violent, supremacist, anti-democratic ways,

      – would we then not be holding followers of that irresponsibly vague most important guiding text RESPONSIBLE for following that text?

      – Should we not demand from them to produce a new interpretation of those vague texts, that seem to be interpretable as followers want to interpret it according to their needs and preferences? One that is more peaceful, democratic and acceptable to other humans? Which the very vagueness makes possible?

      Should we not ask followers of the vague guiding text to distinguish themselves in interpretation of the vague most important guiding texts? by giving the followers of the new interpretation a special name and establishing good membership-criteria?

      Now will someone help me to put this idea in plain English, so that is more easily comprehensible?

      • Demsci says

        Feb 28, 2015 at 11:51 am

        Once Westerners in large numbers, and some of their media, politicians, parliaments, governments

        CHOOSE to consider the Quran-Sunnah “Irresponsibly Unclear” or “Reckless Unclear”,

        AND choose to hold “normal” Muslims (or their leaders) accountable for

        their choice of religion and hence their following these “Reckless Unclear” most important guiding texts,
        And for
        their choice to refuse to formulate a more harmless interpretation of the proven irresponsibly unclear texts and

        their choice to refuse to clearly distinquish them from those Muslims that interpret Quran-Sunnah in a supremacist violent way by creating a new organisation of Muslims with membership-criteria,

        THEN leaders like Tony Abbott and his government can get laws through parliament that refuses Muslims entry in democracies who

        themselves refuse their allegiance, when given the choice. And they can start demanding choices from resident Muslims, of them either changing their interpretation or leaving the democratic countries.

        Something that now is impossible to get through any democratic parliament.

        THAT was my aim, Westman.

      • voegelinian says

        Feb 28, 2015 at 2:35 pm

        Make that 100,000 years.

  16. Robert wagner says

    Feb 28, 2015 at 1:39 pm

    Should the Islamic State prevail, and establish a world Caliphate, then their version would became the norm of Islam. I am sure that Pope Leo X stated that Martin Luther’s Christianity was not true Christianity.
    I am sure that the Orthodox Rabbis of the Russian Shtetls did not believe that the German reform movement was Judaism. Neither Sunnis or Shiites believe each other represent True Islam.
    Because one sect says another is not the true religion doesn’t mean it’s so.

  17. voegelinian says

    Feb 28, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    charge of “essentialism” is generally leveled against foes of jihad terror who note that all the sects of Islam and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers: it’s simplistic and wrong, we’re told, to say that Islam teaches certain things and doesn’t teach others — as Reza Aslan says, Islam and all other religions can be “molded and shaped into whatever form a worshiper requires.” This is, of course, nonsense — religions do teach certain things and cultivate certain attitudes, and Dagli is affirming that here, no doubt without realizing that in doing so he is doing what others have been charged with “Islamophobia” for doing.

    This reflects Commandment #17 of the PC MC/Islamopologist Book of Dogmas for the 21st Century:

    When thou dost criticize (let alone condemn) Islam, never EVER generalize nor essentialize; when, however, thou dost wish to defend, support, and/or lavish praise upon Islam, please feel free to generalize and essentialize as much as thou likest, to thine heart’s content, all the livelong day!

  18. Demsci says

    Feb 28, 2015 at 9:37 pm

    //”When thou dost criticize (let alone condemn) Islam, never EVER generalize nor essentialize; when, however, thou dost wish to defend, support, and/or lavish praise upon Islam, please feel free to generalize and essentialize as much as thou likest, to thine heart’s content, all the livelong day!”//

    Beautifully said, Voegelinian! I learned this years ago from you, you know.

    I now at least see that: A. there are Muslims (A) and Counter-jihadists (B). Among both A and B there are these A1B1″essentialists” (?) that hold that Islam, Quran-Sunnah is immutable, can be described as what it is and is not.

    But among A (like Reza Aslan) AND B (like Pipes, Mauro) there are also those that say that Quran-Sunnah is “malleable”, “multi-interpretable. These then are A2B2. And mind you, Voegelinian, this IS (IMO) the default position of almost all ignorant, fairplay, Islam-defending people AND of the many Muslims who deny that ISIS and terrorists are Islamic. Pretty epidemical.

    So, will you side with the A1B1 antagonists, who see only black and white on both sides? Or with the A2B2-side, which is anxious to reach some sort of compromise? Have you long since despaired of compromise, is that it?

    • mortimer says

      Mar 1, 2015 at 5:37 am

      Compromise? Either Islam is ‘perfect, complete and eternal’ or it is imperfect, incomplete and provisional.

      What is the compromise?

      • Demsci says

        Mar 1, 2015 at 7:32 am

        Look Mortimer, I hope we will always be firm allies.

        The vexed question of Islam versus Democracy is under huge discussion from 9/11 and I followed it all that time. It is immensely complex, there are no easy solutions, except war.

        But my complicated solution was compromise.
        Among Muslims AND counterjihadists, like Daniel Pipes, Ryan Maura of Clarion Project, and more; there is the A2B2-relativist position. Muslims don;’t say it openly, but they IMPLY all the time that Islam is peaceful. And now they vehemently deny that ISIS-interpretation of Quran-Sunnah is ‘UN-Islamic”. That gives us the chance to conclude that Quran-Sunnah obviously are multi-interpretable.

        This has 2 consequences; I. Muslims SHOULD be able to come up with a peaceful interpretation, that is clear. And Westerners could rightfully ask for such an interpretation, which up until now is only IMPLIED by Muslims, but hardly ever validated by any influential Islamic leaders.
        II. After comparison with “proper formulated, responsible” guiding texts, Westerners could point out that Quran-Sunnah are not proper formulated and irresponsible” because followers so drastically misbehave after their interpretation of these faulty texts. And religion is a choice, so Westerners could hold Muslims accountable for following “faulty” guiding texts.

        The compromise is for 99 % meant for WESTERNERS who now will not change the freedom or religion law!!!

        • Demsci says

          Mar 1, 2015 at 7:36 am

          correction “they vehemently deny that the IS-interpretation is ISLAMIC.

    • voegelinian says

      Mar 1, 2015 at 5:44 am

      Well, Demsci, the way I see it is that it is the Muslims’ obligation and responsibility to reform Islam — and until they do so (where ‘doing so” means with absolute proof), we must protect our societies from Muslims. It’s that simple.

  19. mortimer says

    Mar 1, 2015 at 5:40 am

    Caner K. Dagli wrote: “All of this puts Muslims in a double bind: If they just go about their lives, they stand condemned by those who demand that Muslims “speak out.” But if they do speak out, they can expect to be told that short of declaring their sacred texts invalid, they are fooling themselves or deceiving the rest of us. Muslims are presented with a brutal logic in which the only way to truly disassociate from ISIS and escape suspicion is to renounce Islam altogether.”

    Answer: Violent jihad is Islamic. The caliphate is Islamic. Bringing the two together is Islamic. ISIS is therefore Islamic. Don’t like ISIS? Then leave Islam. What other possibility is there?

  20. Michael Copeland says

    Mar 1, 2015 at 6:53 am

    It was Church practices which Luther protested against, and reformed.
    He did not “reform” the Bible: he relied on it.

  21. Demsci says

    Mar 1, 2015 at 7:21 am

    I will not be a loner, and so I depend/ rely on people like you, Voegelinian. Lee Harris, in his book; the suicide of reason, warned against being a loner very well.

    you could read my posts, find out it’s essence, then formulate my strategy so much better, concise, than I.

    Instead I find you harping on the expected (non)reaction of Muslims. But the point was about giving a WEAPON to our politicians to finally REASONABLY change the law of freedom of religion against “oldstyle Muslims”.

    But the price to pay is to offer Muslims a way out, and that price we pay not to Muslims only, but more especially to “reasonable people” around us, who determine politics through parliaments. the way out is; we see Islam NOT as essentialist, BUT as relativist. AND we challenge Muslims to come up with a formulated better interpretation of relativist seen Quran-Sunnah.

    When the Muslims with the new interpretation satisfactorily separate from the “oldstyle” Muslims, that is our chance to let the former in and keep the latter out, through parliament and leaders like Tony Abbott.

    • voegelinian says

      Mar 1, 2015 at 4:25 pm

      Demsci, your proposal may sound good on paper, but I’m afraid too many Muslims will spatter blood and brains on that paper, and trample it underfoot.

  22. Robert Wagner says

    Mar 1, 2015 at 2:44 pm

    It seems to me that there two sides to religion. Religious and Political. When Muslims say ISIS is not Islam this is political. I think that Sunnis say Shiites, and visa versa, say the other is not true Islam.
    For this administration to say that ISIS is not Islam is extremely political.

  23. François Gravel says

    Mar 2, 2015 at 4:09 am

    Says the Bible (KJV): “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10). Similarly: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:13). Also: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” (Exodus 22:18); “A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones.” (Leviticus 20:27). Finally: “And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.” (Leviticus 24:16).

    Thing is, Jews who take such commandments seriously are nowhere to find in this day and age. On the other hand, stoning as punishment for unfaithful spouses is favored by 89% of Muslims in Pakistan, 85% in Afghanistan, 84% in the Palestinian Territories, and 81% in Egypt, according to a 2013 Pew Research Center survey. Also, 86% of Muslims in Egypt and 82% in Jordan support the death penalty for leaving Islam. And where are we actually seeing adulterers, homosexuals, witches and blasphemers put to death nowadays, Mr. Dagli? In Israel, perhaps? Or, rather, in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Surely you must know the answer to that question, don’t you?

    In other words, the overwhelming majority of Jews have long declared much of their “sacred” texts invalid and renounced a big chunk of Mosaic Judaism, thus becoming secular Jews instead of fooling themselves or deceiving the rest of us. Is it too much to ask that Muslims be able to do the same? Or does Mr. Dagli believe them incapable of it? Which would be very “progressive” indeed, because, as Pat Condell tells us: “Racism of lower expectations for non-white people is very progressive. This kind of racism gives Islam a free pass by default, because and only because it’s a religion followed mainy by brown-skinned people. Progressives don’t really believe that non-white people are equal or are capable of being equal on their own merits, but only in the way that a handicapped golfer is equal—artificially.”

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

  • James Lincoln on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • Carol on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • James Lincoln on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • Jayme on Canadian Mental Health Association studies Muslim women’s mental health due to ‘discrimination’ and ‘hate crimes’
  • GreekEmpress on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe

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.