• 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

Vox whines that “anti-Islam Muslims keep getting promoted as ‘experts'”

Mar 3, 2016 10:33 am By Robert Spencer

This article is an excellent example of how Leftists and Islamic supremacists take on those whom they hate and fear: they don’t ever engage their arguments or make any attempt to refute them on a rational basis. Instead, they heap personal attacks upon their foes, and pretend that what they’re saying is self-evidently false. They apparently think that they don’t have to bother with genuine discussion and debate because the ignorance and credulity of their readers is impenetrable. On that score they’re probably right. More below.

Wardah Khalid

“The Ayaan Hirsi Ali problem: why do anti-Islam Muslims keep getting promoted as ‘experts’?,” by Wardah Khalid, Vox, March 1, 2016:

A 2011 Air Force Research Laboratory white paper has been widely and rightly criticized in recent weeks for making a number of offensive and unsubstantiated claims about Islam, including that wearing hijab — the Islamic headscarf — is a form of “passive terrorism.”

The article, titled “A Strategic Plan to Defeat Radical Islam,” was published online a few weeks ago by the website Public Intelligence and had been reissued by the Air Force as recently as last summer. It is shocking and irresponsible that such an outrageous claim was included in a military report, but perhaps most surprising of all is that the author was not some far right-wing pundit, but a Muslim.

So saying that wearing hijab is a form of “passive terrorism” is an “offensive and unsubstantiated claim,” and indeed, an “outrageous” one. But note that Wardah Khalid does nothing to substantiate her claims that this is a terrible thing to say. She offers nary a single reason why anyone should not think that wearing hijab is a form of “passive terrorism.” All she has done is throw mud. And there’s more mud coming:

The writer is Tawfik Hamid a self-proclaimed “Islamic thinker and reformer, and one time Islamic extremist from Egypt.” He is currently a fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies and is the author of a number of books on radical Islam.

But it’s not just this one report or this one author. Hamid is part of a long line of “pseudo-experts” on Islam, and he represents a much larger problem in which fringe Muslim Americans pushing an anti-Islam agenda are promoted as legitimate experts, thus mainstreaming ideas that are both offensive and incorrect.

Why is Tawfik Hamid a “pseudo-expert”? Why, because Wardah Khalid says so, and apparently because he has made this claim that we are supposed to take as “offensive and unsubstantiated.” Yet more glaringly unsubstantiated here is any reason why Tawfik Hamid should be seen as unreliable.

These pseudo-experts typically argue some version of the idea that Islam is inherently violent and oppressive and needs to be reformed or defeated altogether. Their views are treated as legitimate by virtue of their religion; they are Muslim or formerly Muslim themselves, so they must know. This doesn’t just lead groups like the Air Force Research Laboratory to portray junk analysis as correct; it also promotes fringe ideologues as legitimate representatives of Islam and of Muslim Americans, when they are anything but.

Has Wardah Khalid established that Islam is not “inherently violent and oppressive”? No, she doesn’t even bother. It’s “junk analysis,” you see, and no doubt if you’re skeptical of this in light of the loudly proclaimed Islamic bona fides of the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizballah, and so many other jihad terror groups, you’re a racist, bigoted Islamophobe.

Most famous is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Dutch-American author and former Muslim who argues for a complete reformation of Islam, calling it “the new fascism” and “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death.” She demanded a Western-led war on the religion and was cited as a source of inspiration in the 1,500-page manifesto of Anders Breivik, the right-wing shooter who killed 77 people and injured 319 in Norway. Hirsi Ali later sympathized with Breivik’s argument that he “had no other choice but to use violence.”…

The claim that Ayaan Hirsi Ali justified Breivik’s murders or sympathized with his argument is plain libel; she did no such thing. Breivik was a psychopath who murdered people because he was a psychopath; if Ayaan Hirsi Ali had really incited him to kill, there would be other readers of Ayaan killing people. In reality, Ayaan Hirsi Ali never called for violence against anyone, and never justified any, and in making this claim, Wardah Khalid reveals how deeply mendacious she really is, and how desperate to discredit those whom she hates and fears.

A fellow laureate of the Lantos Prize is Irshad Manji, who argues that the entire religion of Islam requires reform. Manji has also testified against “political correctness” around Islam at a Homeland Security subcommittee hearing on the Fort Hood shooter, strongly implying that the FBI intentionally withheld critical information that could have stopped the shooter because of its fear of speaking out against Islam. This was despite openly admitting that she had absolutely no knowledge of whether FBI officers actually withheld any information. Her only claims to expertise were her negative personal experiences in Islamic school and her current status as a “reformist” Muslim.

Does Wardah Khalid explain why “the entire religion of Islam” does not need reform? No. And I don’t know what Manji said about Fort Hood — Wardah Khalid isn’t specific enough for her claims to be checked — but it is a matter of public record that the Fort Hood jihad murderer, Nidal Malik Hasan, was promoted despite having been in touch with Anwar al-Awlaki and having frightened his coworkers with his talk of jihad. The massacre could certainly have been prevented had it not been for politically correct fears of prosecuting a Muslim officer.

Zuhdi Jasser, the founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, was relatively unknown to the Muslim American community until he testified at Rep. Peter King’s extremely controversial homegrown Islamic terrorism hearings in 2011, where he stated that Muslims are “long overdue for an ideological counter-jihad.” He claimed that Muslim American leaders, including imams, are contributing to radicalization by not actively campaigning against political Islam or for the separation of mosque and state.

Jasser’s are ideas we would more easily recognize for what they are — and would likely reject out of hand — if not for the fact that Jasser is himself Muslim.

Does Wardah Khalid prove that Muslim American leaders, including imams, are not contributing to radicalization? No.

And so it goes. Being an Islamic supremacist spokesman today is a great gig. It gets you fawned over in the mainstream media and a ready platform to smear your enemies, and you never have to explain yourself or defend your views in any way. No wonder there are so many of them.

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: "Islamophobia", claiming victim status, Featured, journalistic bias Tagged With: Vox, Wardah Khalid


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Jay Boo says

    Mar 3, 2016 at 10:42 am

    Muslims hate us yet, they call us the haters.

    • mortimer says

      Mar 3, 2016 at 2:22 pm

      But, JB, you are always saying how much you hate Islam and you use coarse language.

      • John C. Barile says

        Mar 4, 2016 at 5:09 pm

        I, on the other hand, Mort, must be a real sort of squish, because I can claim Tawfik Hamid and Zuhdi Jasser as FB friends. I guess I must be an Islam-coddling jihad enabler.

    • gravenimage says

      Mar 3, 2016 at 11:45 pm

      I have no problems with Jay Boo hating Islam.

      Any sane and decent person does hate Islam, unless they are utterly ignorant or mired in denial.

      Islam is an ideology utterly lacking in redeeming features.

      • ECAW says

        Mar 4, 2016 at 5:50 am

        I disagree. Hate is too strong and personal. I merely loathe Islam.

        I’m not a hater…just a loather.

        • Biff H says

          Mar 4, 2016 at 7:39 am

          Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. -Romans 12:9 KJV

          Abhor – detest, HATE, LOATHE, despise, execrate, regard with disgust, shrink from, recoil from, shudder at; (formal) abominate.

          Splitting hairs, to what end?

        • ECAW says

          Mar 4, 2016 at 8:33 am

          I don’t think so:

          “Synonym Discussion of loathe. hate, detest, abhor, abominate, loathe mean to feel strong aversion or intense dislike for. hate implies an emotional aversion often coupled with enmity or malice”

          IMHO:

          1. Hate is a notch beyond the others, as the above definition has it, coupling it with enmity or malice.

          2. You can abhor, detest or loathe on an intellectual level. Hate implies visceral.

          3. Hate is for people not ideas or abstractions.

          4. Hate is always ugly and its frequent use in places like this is a gift to those who would dismiss us as merely hateful.

          I don’t think I’ve ever seen Robert Spencer or Hugh Fitzgerald or Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Wafa Sultan et al ever talk about hating Islam. Why not?

        • ICH says

          Mar 4, 2016 at 8:40 am

          HATE is just one of many keywords “they” sling.

          Like a dagger to the heart. A show stopper.

          So if you know how to counter it and not feel like
          your are an evil person for questioning a death cult,
          people actually think you make sense.

        • Mirren10 says

          Mar 4, 2016 at 9:34 am

          Well, ECAW, I have to strongly disagree with you.

          Firstly, there is a crucial difference in meaning between enmity, and malice. To imply the two words are synonomous is completely wrong.

          Secondly, you imply there is something reprehensible in a visceral emotion, and that an intellectual loathing is more acceptable. I don’t agree. I hate Nazism and Communism

          on a visceral level, as I hate islam in the same way. The
          fact that my intellect (and conscience) tells me the tenets of all are evil and wicked, doesn’t replace my visceral feelings.

          Thirdly, I fail to see the logic of your contention that “hate is for people, not ideas or abstractions”. Why can’t it be for both ? I hate that evil muslim bitch who murdered the little Russian toddler, Nastye, just as I hate the evil ideology she has espoused, which tells her that what normal people call evil, is good.

          Fourthly, I disagree with your statement, “hate is always ugly”. Hatred for things, ideas, and people that are hateful and evil is an honest and appropriate emotion and reaction. It is what hatred is *for*. Abhorrence on an “intellectual level” seems to me to be sophistical nonsense.

          I concur with gravenimage; ” God, I *hate* (my emphasis) islam.”

        • ECAW says

          Mar 4, 2016 at 10:04 am

          Mirren10 – It paiins me to have to disagree with people I would much rather agree with, as I knew would be the case but (there’s always a but isn’t there?):

          1. I didn’t mean to imply that enmity and malice are the same, I was giving the dictionary quote in full. The one I am interested in is “malice”. I do regard anyone who takes Mo seriously as potentially and probably my enemy but I do not feel malice towards them any more than I feel malice towards a dog that bites me…it’s just in the nature of the creature.

          Here’s a quote from one of my favourite writers 🙂 on the subject, in hopes of clarifying:

          ” Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Ali Sina and Ayaan Hirsi Ali….are not hate mongers. Wafa Sultan correctly locates the primary source of hatred in Allah, “The God who Hates”. She ends her book hoping that in time her efforts “will be crowned with success and a new god will be born; a God who loves”. Nor am I a hate monger. I have hated one or two people in my time and I know what it feels like. I do not hate Muslims. I merely pity them in their benightedness and fear those of them who follow Mohammed’s teachings and example too closely.”

          2 and 3. It’s a personal difference. I cannot hate an abstraction and I have only ever hated people (not many) and not the Muslima who killed the Russian toddler. Now if she had killed my toddler…for me hate is only personal.

          4. I do think hate is always ugly. On the rare occasions I have felt it, it had a corrosive effect on me rather than the object of it. “Sophistical nonsense” – Oh no, don’t throw me in the same bin as the Considine creature, I couldn’t bear it!

          Nevertheless I stand by my points about the impression it gives to our opponents and ask when did you ever see Spencer et al talk in those terms, and why they don’t.

        • Champ says

          Mar 4, 2016 at 10:57 pm

          I have given myself permission to hate, especially the things that God hates …

          Shriek! God hates? Yes:

          Question: “Does God hate? If God is love, how can He hate?”

          Answer: It seems a contradiction that a God who is love can also hate. We are created with the capacity to both love and hate; it is part of our being created in the image of God. The fact that we are all tainted with sin does not negate the fact that the ability to love and hate is part of the image of God that was created within us all. Therefore, if it is no contradiction for a human being to be able to love and hate, then much more so would it not be a contradiction for God to be able to love and hate.

          When the Bible does speak of God hating, the object of God’s hatred is usually sin and wickedness. Among the things God hates are idolatry (Deuteronomy 12:31; 16:22) and those who do evil (Psalm 5:4-6; 11:5). Proverbs 6:16-19 outlines seven things the Lord hates: pride, lying, murder, evil plots, those who love evil, false witness, and troublemakers. Notice that this passage does not include just things that God hates; it includes people as well.

          The question that begs to be answered at this point is why does God hate these things? God hates them because they are contrary to His nature—God’s nature being holy, pure and righteous. In fact, David writes, “For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you” (Psalm 5:4 emphasis added). God is holy and hates sin. If He did not hate sin, He would not be holy. God is love, but He is also wrath, justice, and vengeance. But His wrath is a holy wrath and His justice and vengeance are holy as well. God’s love is holy. Therefore, He cannot “love everyone all the time no matter what they do,” as some like to claim. Nothing could be further from the truth. God loves righteousness and holiness and hates sin and evil. If He did not, He would not be God.

          So if God hates sin and loves holiness, how does He love us? Simple. He loves us because we have the righteousness of Christ who became sin for us on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21). He poured out His wrath and vengeance against sin on His Son, so that He could pour out His mercy and love on us. But without that sacrifice credited to us, His wrath and hatred remain on us because He hates our sin. The Bible never says He “hates the sin, but loves the sinner.” In fact, He is “angry with the wicked every day” (Psalm 7:11). Is there a sense in which God loves everyone? Yes. Does that love preclude God from also hating sin, wickedness, and evil? No.

          Here:

          http://www.gotquestions.org/does-God-hate.html

        • linnte says

          Mar 4, 2016 at 11:04 pm

          Even nature shows us that GOD can hate. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Dark, light, white, black up down death life etc.

        • Mirren10 says

          Mar 5, 2016 at 12:22 pm

          Dear ECAW, I would *never* throw you in the same bin as the creepy Considine ! 🙂

          Nevertheless, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

        • ECAW says

          Mar 5, 2016 at 1:22 pm

          Sure…it’s not the politburo here is it? 🙂

    • red rose says

      Mar 4, 2016 at 10:31 am

      You should NEVER trust a Muslim. Period. They are taught to deceit at any cost for the ultimate mission – conquer all non-Muslim lands and convert.

      • Champ says

        Mar 4, 2016 at 11:03 pm

        You should NEVER trust a Muslim. Period.

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        I concur, red rose.

    • Champ says

      Mar 5, 2016 at 2:06 am

      Jay Boo wrote:

      Muslims hate us yet, they call us the haters.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      Exactly! And their unholy quran instructs them to hate …

      In the video he’s reading *hate* verses from the quran — since allah is a hater, and of course so are allah’s followers:

      https://youtu.be/tTbg_WS3ktg

  2. David says

    Mar 3, 2016 at 10:58 am

    Perhaps NOW you have a better understanding as to WHY scholars have, for centuries refered to islam as “Satans Counterfeit”.
    Islam has nothing to do with, “Making you a better person”, or purifying the soul of the adherents. NO! Far from that, it is instead all about your SUBMISSION to (need I say) the will of SATAN. Sometimes known as allah.
    Yes. It is indeed the worse subversion ever perpetrated on the human race. And, once the majority of thinking humans fully understand this fact, we will be able to deal with it.

  3. grace says

    Mar 3, 2016 at 10:59 am

    I glimpsed something on the late night news about a team being formed of refugee olympians.

    What 50 metres wife beat. Decapitation decathalon. And don’t get me started on the shot put.

  4. Angemon says

    Mar 3, 2016 at 11:03 am

    These pseudo-experts typically argue some version of the idea that Islam is inherently violent and oppressive and needs to be reformed or defeated altogether. Their views are treated as legitimate by virtue of their religion; they are Muslim or formerly Muslim themselves, so they must know.

    Let’s see if I can follow:

    – The left has muslims speaking about how wonderful and peaceful islam is.
    – They’re muslim, therefore they know what they’re talking about
    – The right has muslims explaining how and why islam is not a religion of peace, and point out to islamic scriptures and history to make their points.
    – Somehow, we are not to take their words just because they’re muslims, because being muslim doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about.

    Really? Anti-islamic muslims? Is that like an anti-racist KKK member or an pro-semite Nazi? Is there no end to the absurdity of these people? Do they lack any form of self-awareness whatsoever? Can’t they see how stupid they sound?

    Most famous is Ayaan Hirsi Ali… (…) cited as a source of inspiration in the 1,500-page manifesto of Anders Breivik,

    He later admitted he was a Nazi, white supremacist who tried to frame the Counter-Jihad movement and its forefront figures (including Miss Hirsi Ali) as to poison the well and make nazis the only “credible” (well, as credible as nazis can be) alternative to stopping the islamization of Europe.

    the right-wing shooter

    No, Breivik is a nazi. Nazis are left-wing.

    • Angemon says

      Mar 3, 2016 at 11:05 am

      P.S.:

      Jasser’s are ideas we would more easily recognize for what they are — and would likely reject out of hand — if not for the fact that Jasser is himself Muslim.

      Islam’s ideas would be more easily recognized by what they are – and would likely be rejected out of hand – if not for the fact that islam presents itself as a religion.

      • Bernadet says

        Mar 3, 2016 at 4:45 pm

        Excellent!
        Although I might refine the statement by saying, “only” a religion.

    • Oliver says

      Mar 3, 2016 at 6:25 pm

      . Zuhdi Jasser, the founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, was relatively unknown to the Muslim American community until he testified at Rep. Peter King’s extremely controversial homegrown Islamic terrorism hearings in 2011, where he stated that Muslims are “long overdue for an ideological counter-jihad.” He claimed that Muslim American leaders, including imams, are contributing to radicalization by not actively campaigning against political Islam or for the separation of mosque and state.

      Jasser’s are ideas we would more easily recognize for what they are — and would likely reject out of hand — if not for the fact that Jasser is himself Muslim.

      Why would you reject these? At least, in my view, a start– and his comments on the imams, etc-again, in my view- right on the mark.

      Frequent comments on the site are, ( paraphrasing) why aren’t the imams and mosques checked?.

      Yet here is a Muslim saying that they are (if not in its entirety, at least a portion) of the problem.

    • ECAW says

      Mar 4, 2016 at 5:57 am

      “Nazis are left-wing”.

      True. That how the socialism got into National Socialism.

    • DFD says

      Mar 4, 2016 at 7:30 am

      Angemon says: “… Is there no end to the absurdity of these people?”

      No

      “… Can’t they see how stupid they sound? …”

      No

    • vcragain says

      Mar 4, 2016 at 9:17 am

      I would say that nazis were severely RIGHT-wing as in conservative, singular-mode, Authoritarian.
      But to that point the Left/Right controversy is a POLITICAL ideology difference – this has NOTHING to do with who is or is not a cultural THREAT to democracy itself – AS IN ISLAM !

      • ECAW says

        Mar 4, 2016 at 9:30 am

        Doesn’t it make more sense to think of it in terms of an economic left/right axis plus an authoritarian/libertarian axis as do Political Compass?

        https://ecawblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/hooray-im-not-a-fascist-2/

        • Angemon says

          Mar 4, 2016 at 6:53 pm

          Ha ha, ECAW, I did that test in June or July last year and got a similar result. Around the (-2.90, -2.90) area, IIRC.

  5. miriamrove says

    Mar 3, 2016 at 11:03 am

    Hi Robert! great article to say the least. You are so correct about these people. Simply the fact that they are Muslims do not make them an authority about Islam. As you know I was born and raised about Islam. I have read most of your books and I learnt more about Islam from you that I did not even know existed. In my book you know more about Islam than the Ayatollahs and the fatwa issuing D…bags in Saudi Arabia and else where. So keep up the good work. M

  6. rubiconcrest says

    Mar 3, 2016 at 11:48 am

    W. Khalid goes on to say, ‘No single person can speak on behalf of a religion with more than a billion adherents or even the millions of American Muslims’ but that there are many experts in the US who the government and media should consult because their views are in consistent with hers.

    W. Khalid we don’t need experts to tell us what the extremists say and do and how the Islam’s religious texts say and call for the same things. We can interpret Islam for ourselves. All we need to is see, hear read for ourselves. Based on this alone, ignoring all experts, it begs the question whether this seemingly literate Muslim author has actually seen, heard or read what the followers of Islam do and how these actions correspond to the texts of Islam?

  7. ICH says

    Mar 3, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    The biggest thing I have learned with this site , is its ok to be ME.
    I am not alone in my fear of Islam.
    I am not a hater or a bigot.
    And I dont need to defend myself continuously as if I am.

    The world is changing.
    Many feel this way.
    We see the horrors each day.
    To deny them is just stupidity.

  8. R. Schwind says

    Mar 3, 2016 at 1:10 pm

    This is the face of the enemy, the brood mare who produces the next generation of jihadified Muslims dedicated to our destruction. Quran Surah 9: 29 says it all.

  9. mortimer says

    Mar 3, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    So, Wardah Khalid made this claim: “…unsubstantiated claims about Islam, including that wearing hijab — the Islamic headscarf — is a form of “passive terrorism.”

    Let’s look at the fact of Koran 33.59: “‘O Prophet, direct thy wives and daughters and the women of the believers that they should pull down their outer cloaks from their heads over their faces. This will make it possible for them to be DISTINGUISHED so that they will NOT BE MOLESTED.’

    So, 1) DISTINGUISHED…Muslim women should be ‘identified’ as Muslims, and ‘distinguished’ (from whom?) from dirty kafirs, so 2) they will not be MOLESTED… but there is our point 3)…MOLESTED BY WHOM?

    It is obvious that this verse is implying that Muslim males have been given the right to ‘molest’ (i.e. rape) women who don’t ‘belong’ to a Muslim male.

    Women are chattels of a Muslim male. The scarf is the equivalent of a brand on a cow. ‘Unbranded’ women can be used by any Muslim male. She is not ‘protected’ by Islam.

    So Wardah Khalid’s claim is shown to be false. Women who are unveiled are no one’s property and ‘unprotected’ by Islam. The Islamic word is ‘mubaa’ (licit) or in English we could call that ‘fair game’ (for rape). The Islamic veil is truly a passive threat of rape.

    • Bernadet says

      Mar 3, 2016 at 5:03 pm

      Great points, and clearly an ingrained part of the muslima ummah thinking. (Well, more accurately the total ummah way of thinking.)

      Consider the recent article, “Hijab or Not, Sexual Harassment Has Nothing to Do With Dress Codes,” found on the ‘Muslim Girl’ website:

      “HarassMap, a volunteer-based initiative that works to end the social acceptability of sexual harassment in Egypt, stated that it is a false notion when people think sexual harassment happens to unveiled and/or indecently dressed women and that “respectable” women don’t get harassed.”

      http://muslimgirl.net/20378/hijab-sexual-harassment-nothing-dress-codes/

      I applaud the article for giving (however much a whisper) Muslim, covered, women a voice for rights (not to be sexually harassed), but as usual the religious (Koran, Hadith) codification for overt sexism is not discussed.

      Of course it was beyond the scope of the article, but I would challenge its author and readers to examine what sexual harassment of a kafir woman means – and who is at fault. Is it the nasty kafir? How does belief that “she deserves it” reflect what’s going on in their own lives?

    • anthony says

      Mar 3, 2016 at 9:08 pm

      @Mortimer, good point ! This article reminds me of a discussion Robert had with this London-based imam, and Robert quoted extensively from the koran which this imam couldn’t refute, but instead he just talked about why Robert should be banned to come to England.And the funniest part is when the moderator said that the imam should know the koran, after all he’s an imam. ha ha, real funny.

      So basically this woman just did what the imam did to Robert, not attacking the issue, providing reasons to refute the other’s side claim, instead she’s attacking the opponent’s position.

      That’s why islam is so vulnerable against logical thinking, pity them. Afterall they’re not thought to think but to obey allah and mo.

  10. sidney penny says

    Mar 3, 2016 at 5:24 pm

    “they don’t ever engage their arguments or make any attempt to refute them on a rational basis. Instead, they heap personal attacks upon their foes, and pretend that what they’re saying is self-evidently false.”

    Robert, you keep hitting the nail on the head.

  11. sidney penny says

    Mar 3, 2016 at 5:31 pm

    “And so it goes. Being an Islamic supremacist spokesman today is a great gig. It gets you fawned over in the mainstream media and a ready platform to smear your enemies, and you never have to explain yourself or defend your views in any way. No wonder there are so many of them.”

    “No wonder there are so many of them”

    Robert, can you give us a few names(list) to look out for?

    Haroon Moghul makes the list?

    Maybe time for a new tab ( or book ) on your website?

    How to smear your enemies, and not defend your views in any way.

    or better still

    Hit the man, not the argument?

  12. sidney penny says

    Mar 3, 2016 at 5:50 pm

    How to smear your enemies, and not defend your views in any way.or Hit the man, not the argument?

    the best example is here -appendix 4

    http://voiceofdharma.org/books/htemples2/

    http://voiceofdharma.org/books/htemples2/app4.htm

    You either get no reply or they use swear words a bit like what Wardah Khalid does although she does not use swear words.

    “We hope that the professors will not resort to the hackneyed swear-words such as….. Swear-words offer no solutions. In any case, the time when swear-words carried weight has passed. It is no use inviting the other side to hit back in a similar manner.”

    or use the argument from authority

    “I wish you had refrained from striking the pose of superiority which has been for long the hallmark of your school of historians. It does not go well with academic discipline.”

    or be selective in what you answer.

    “The method of selecting facts and floating fictions is very well known to me”

    THE second last paragraph of that chapter read:

    Our plea is that they should be seen in a proper perspective, and not exaggerated in order to whitewash or counter-balance the record of Islamic intolerance.

    Firstly, the instances are few and far between when compared to those listed in Islamic annals.

    Secondly, those instances are spread over several millennia while the fourteen centuries of Islam stand crowded with religious crimes of all sorts.

    Thirdly, none of those instances were inspired by a theology, while in the case of Islam a theology of intolerance has continued to question the character of Muslim kings who happened to be tolerant.

    Fourthly, Jains were not always the victims of persecution; they were persecutors as well once in a while.

    Lastly, no king or commander or saint who showed intolerance has been a Hindu hero, while Islam has hailed as heroes only those characters who excelled in intolerance.

  13. Matthieu Baudin says

    Mar 3, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    “…they heap personal attacks upon their foes, and pretend that what they’re saying is self-evidently false. They apparently think that they don’t have to bother with genuine discussion and debate because the ignorance and credulity of their readers is impenetrable. On that score they’re probably right…”

    Ignorant and incredulous, yes, but inherently stupid,no. They live in a subcultural bubble where they mix socially and discuss things almost exclusively with like minded people. In the process they reinforce a group identity, a sense of belonging and a certain arrogance and prestige associated with being part of a social elite; the same type of nonsense that groomed the Avant Guard years ago. They are on course to cut their own throats by choosing such strange bed fellows as Islamic fundamentalists but they remain tragically unaware of the collision course that their wildly contradictory attitudes have sent them on.

    Those of us who live outside of this delusional bubble, can do little else than to keep chipping away, hoping that some sort of re evaluation is possible. Unfortunately the organs of state and peak community institutions appear to be captive to Post Modern values, or more precisely ‘lack of values’, and this makes the task of rational discussion about the inherent problems within Islam, all the more difficult.

  14. gravenimage says

    Mar 3, 2016 at 11:42 pm

    Vox whines that “anti-Islam Muslims keep getting promoted as ‘experts’”
    ……………………………..

    No one is allowed to say anything negative about Islam–not Muslims, and not the filthy Infidel. This is the situation under Sharia’h.

    Here’s the author whining about having received a bit of extra scrutiny on entering Israel. She is obvious Muslim, wears a Hijab, and had just returned from a solo trip to Pakistan. Of course, she makes no note of the constant barrage of JIhad terror against Israel, making is sound as though the Israelis are just “Islamophobic”.

    “Wardah Khalid’s ‘Ordeal'”

    http://hpmonitor.blogspot.com/2013/06/wardah-khalids-ordeal.html

    She whines further in the comments section, apparently angered that anyone would call her on her false victim mongering.

  15. gravenimage says

    Mar 3, 2016 at 11:56 pm

    Here’s lots more whining and Taqiyya from Wardah Khalid on the egregious Huffington Post:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wardah-khalid/

    Probably the most appalling story is on the Boston Marathon Bombing, where she whines about the media for daring to notice the perpetrators were Muslim. And then she claims that *she* is frightened–not by Jihad terrorists, but by the fake “backlash”.

    She is angry at the Jihadists not for murdering people, but for (supposedly) making things difficult for Mohammedans. Despicable.

  16. EAPierce says

    Mar 4, 2016 at 3:32 am

    There’s one crucial point missing from your analysis, Mr. Spencer, and it’s a point that is becoming increasingly difficult (obviously) to ignore: reform-minded Muslims and ex-Muslims are becoming much more relevant in the movement. People like Ayaan and Zuhdi have been under fire from the PC Islamist brigade for more than a decade, but their movements have gained traction, not lost it. The number of Muslims joining their efforts have increased. Things are starting to change – AND YOU KNOW IT.

    Please help empower these people. Empowering reformists should be the second-most crucial component of counter-jihad, the first being what you’re already doing, which is unsentimental criticism. But as a person of faith, you know that people are extremely unlikely to ditch their religious beliefs just because someone comes along and points out what’s wrong with their scriptures. People of conscience, however (as you acknowledge most Muslims essentially are), in the face of a vituperative storm about their religion, would be tempted to latch onto a reformist interpretation… a theological umbrella, if you will. A place from which they can authoritatively dismiss Islamist supremacism and theocracy. And there are Muslims and interested non-Muslims working hard and taking the same risks you are to try to establish that. I know this isn’t news to you, but as a longtime JW subscriber, I’m starting to lose hope that your content will ever reflect that.

    It’s time to listen to them. Really listen to them. Please.

  17. Richard Paulsen says

    Mar 4, 2016 at 10:11 am

    How will the U.S.A. and Europe manage with a majority of muslims as in muslim states?
    Why seeking asylum in not muslim states claiming islam being so good, giving protection, so peaceful and with rightwing people? Being of the opinion everyone as rightwing not being of the same belief as yourself.
    Why is there no migration into islamic states from the U.S.A and Europe since islam is so good for people? Why not accepting life in the country you escape to?
    Why establish the same you escaped from in the country you begged to protect you? Not allowing that which you escaped from being criticized claiming it is perfect.
    What then is the intention with the escape? Dreadful to contemplate.
    Dread

  18. linnte says

    Mar 4, 2016 at 12:37 pm

    I emailed this woman. Of course she won’t get it, but I explained how Sharia is not compatible with our Constitution due to the many different cultures that would have their rights infringed upon if Sharia were the law of the land. I connected the Hijab to Sharia and that just seeing her wear a Hijab tells me she wants Sharia to be the law of the land and so therefore, the Hijab is a symbol of treason. I asked her why she even lives here if she wants to remove the Constitutional Rights of Americans.

  19. winoceros says

    Mar 4, 2016 at 9:58 pm

    Do not conflate the reforms of Ali and Jasser. Both are admirable individuals, but Ali would do away with Islam and Jasser is a patriot worshipping in his own private Idaho, an Islam of his own invention.

    There are reformers, but when you have a barrel of rotten apple sludge of doctrine to start with, what do you extract as the “good” stuff?

    Robert has praised Ali, but he continues to point out the cognitive dissonance in Jasser’s hopes for Islam’s slaves and what they should believe.

    Still admirable, but often reformers use typical Muslim dualism in their non-Aristotlean “arguments.”

    Most typical of Muslim “argument” is the brain-numbing article referenced: argumentum ad populum without a single rebuttal, literally, of any sort in the whole thing. Very normal, non-Western thinking. Believe anything you desire, as long as it is vociferous, it is true.

    Teach Islamic children Aristotle and logic classes and Islam will disappear.

    • linnte says

      Mar 4, 2016 at 10:06 pm

      And get rid of that damned book, the Qur’an!

  20. Mirren10 says

    Mar 5, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    Dear ECAW, I would *never* throw you in the same bin as the creepy Considine ! 🙂

    Nevertheless, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

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

  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • OLD GUY on UK: Woman converts to Islam, distributes Islamic State jihad terror videos
  • OLD GUY on Al-Qaeda Calls on Jihadis to Kill Non-Muslims With Poisoned Coronavirus Masks
  • Boycott Turkey on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Michael Copeland on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West

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.