• 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

This project of shielding Muslims from criticism is misguided in the extreme

May 4, 2016 4:52 pm By Joel Shapiro

Syed-Soharwardy

It is very common for liberals and multi-culturalists, who are great defenders of human rights, to vilify criticism of Islamic racism and terrorism. Even the CBC, Canadian bastion of human rights, went into full panic and attack mode when Robert Spencer visited Calgary. Leftists are worried that any critique of Muslims, however rigorous, scholarly, or true, might spark a backlash against Muslims or lead to Islamophobia. They try to deflect criticism of radical Islam by arguing that not all Muslims are terrorists, Muslims might be offended by the critique, Islamist terrorists are not really Muslims, or that we need to bring our communities together rather than tear them apart with criticism. While I strongly agree that criticism of radical Islam should not be racist or incite racism against Muslims in any way, I believe that this project of shielding Muslims from criticism is misguided in the extreme. While the intention of these leftists is to protect human rights, they have trapped themselves in an anti-humanitarian position of defending, protecting, and enabling Islamist crimes against humanity. I have argued with my fellow liberals dozens of times on this issue and they always take the position (without fully seeing it) that it’s more important to protect Islam from criticism than to protect human rights—than to protect people from Islamic terrorism. Here is part of my response to these liberals — to their untenable and dangerous position on this matter.

“Why criticize Islamist racism and violence; shouldn’t we be bringing communities together?” I definitely agree that community building is job number one. Every community in the West should be reaching out to the local Muslim community to build relationships, community, and citizenship — and generally enrich the culture as a whole. This exchange goes two ways; we can learn from each other. But most importantly, we need to respect each other and learn how to live well together.

Nevertheless, a second kind of project is equally important, namely, trying to understand and resist or oppose Islamist racism and terrorism. I would question the sanity of any person who does not agree with me on this point, i.e., anyone who believes Islamist racism and terrorism are ethically and morally acceptable, that they are welcome in Canada and the US, and/or should never be called into question.

Not everyone, of course, is obligated to work on both projects (community building and opposition to extremism). Some people are more passionate about one than the other; some are better (more skilled) at one than the other; many don’t have time for both projects; some don’t have the courage to stand up against extremism… Nevertheless, in my opinion, we all have to acknowledge the importance of both projects. At the end of the day, regardless of the project one chooses to work on, we have to conduct both without racism. We want to understand and fight racism, not add to it.

Here is where I might disagree with the liberals. I interpret Spencer’s work in this way. Spencer is focusing on the second project—analyzing and opposing Islamist racism and terrorism—and I am grateful for that. I am also inspired by his courage. (As you know, everyone who opposes Islamism gets death threats.) Spencer is not painting all Muslims with the same brushstroke; he is not generalizing to all Muslims; he never claims that all Muslims are terrorists. In the talk I attended, Spencer held a lengthy discussion about the diversity of the global Muslim community: from peaceful to Jihadi, from moderate to fundamentalist, from progressive to reactionary, and so on. His critique is clearly not racist, nor does it promote racism. Spencer is clearly fighting against racism. And criticizing racism is not racist. Criticizing racism is an obligation for those who believe in human rights. (I am using the word racism to cover racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination, including, genocide, ethnic cleansing, sectarian violence, violent Jihad, etc.)

Spencer’s project is twofold:

First, Spencer argues against racism and terrorism as violent, destructive, and unethical practices. Who could be opposed to this point of view except for the terrorists themselves? There is a point at which we have to agree that fighting Spencer on this point puts you on the side of the racists and terrorists.

Second, Spencer is analyzing Islamist ideology. He is assessing where their views actually come from. There is so much propaganda and misinformation that this is actually difficult to do. The terrorists themselves argue that it is their religious duty to kill and subjugate infidels…and Spencer is assessing the truth of those claims. The terrorists are citing passages from the Koran and Hadith, and Spencer is checking to see if those passages actually exist.

Sadly, Spencer (and dozens of other scholars) have found that the terrorists are not making it up. The passages from the Koran & Hadith the terrorists cite are actually there—they exist, they are real, and they are exactly where the terrorists said they would be. It turns out that it is their religious duty to kill and subjugate infidels, conduct violent Jihad, oppress minorities, promote racism, and the like. While most Muslims, fortunately, do not believe in or practice those particular aspects of Islam (Spencer speculates that many Muslims don’t even know about those passages), those discriminatory, racist and violent passages are in fact there in the religious texts and thus authentic possibilities of Islam.

At this point, the liberals totally freak out. They argue that if you criticize the Koran, the holy book for Muslims, you are a racist. They argue: “You can’t attack a people’s holy book; attacking a religion is by definition racist (discriminatory).” What this argument misses entirely is that Spencer is only confirming what the terrorists themselves have said. Spencer didn’t put those passages in the Koran; he didn’t write the Hadith; he wasn’t even alive when the Koran was written/revealed. Obviously. Either the passages are in there or they are not. How could it be racist to study and report on those passages? Whether you like what the Koran has to say or not, reading it closely is a sign of respect, not racism. It is widely acceptable to publicly criticize reactionary passages in the Old and New Testament. But that same discuss with respect to Islam is unofficially verboten – by many liberals, western governments, and western media outlets.

The service Spencer is doing for humanity is, first, helping us criticize racism and terrorism without being racist ourselves (he is teaching us to use scholarship, not insults); and second, helping us understand where Islamist racism and terrorism come from. Again, it turns out that it comes from exactly where the terrorists say it does. If you don’t like that, be angry with the terrorists and their sources of inspiration, not with Spencer.

Liberals always raise the issue of not wanting to offend Muslims. On the surface this seems like a reasonable, sensitive, and ethical concern. I agree that we should not go around offending people, and that free speech should not be used in that horrid way (just because it is legal does not make it moral/ethical). But I personally don’t find this to be a problem at all. It is a complete non-issue — it is misdirection, a slight of hand, part of the terrorists’ propaganda war. Just ask yourself this: Which Muslims will be offended by criticism of racism and terrorism? The vast majority of Muslim are peaceful and don’t want racism and terrorism any more than we do. A peaceful Muslim, by definition, is a Muslim who opposes racism and terrorism. That’s what peaceful means – or should mean. In fact, many Muslims who are in Canada are themselves fleeing Islamist violence and oppression (and some oppression that is not specifically Islamic). The only Muslims who will be offended by a critique of racism and terrorism are the racists and terrorists themselves—a tiny minority of Muslims, and in fact, a group of Muslims who have already declared war on Jews and the West. You can immediately see how absurd this logic is when we apply it to other ethical issues. Two examples:

First: We don’t worry about hurting the feelings of rapists when we study and criticize rape. The vast majority of men, who are not rapists, should not be offended when we criticize rape. In fact, we should expect that most men join women in standing up against rape. I certainly don’t want the women I love to be raped, and I would be incredibly disappointed and suspicious about a man who, whenever the topic came up, always and only says: “Hey, don’t worry, not all men are rapists.”

Second: We shouldn’t care if we offend white supremacists when we analyze and criticize white supremacism. The vast majority of whites are not supremacists, and they shouldn’t be offended when we criticize white supremacism. The only people who are going to be offended by a critique of white supremacism are the supremacists themselves. Should we care about their feelings so much that we stop criticizing white supremacism? I assume that every rational person, even the liberals, would agree that the answer is a resounding “No.” Liberals criticize injustice all the time, including racism and discrimination.

When we criticize Islamist supremacism (which leads to racism and terrorism), we have to do so directly, honestly, openly, without fear…and of course without racism—not all Muslims are supremacists; some supremacists learned to be racists as children (from their parents); Muslim supremacists, like white supremacists, are not lower forms of life (e.g., apes & pigs); their human rights should be respected… But their supremacism is morally repugnant—and I don’t care if that statement hurts their feelings.

Note: My reference to “apes and pigs” is ironic: that is a racist slur against Jews that comes from Muslim communities—and Muslim leaders—all over the world. It is disgusting. What kind of person teaches their community and their children that other peoples are apes and pigs? Almost as sickening as this racism is that western intellectuals and governments are more freaked out about criticizing this racism than the racism itself. This is dishonest, cowardly, and highly offensive.

In conclusion, we should not care too much about whether our legitimate political critique of Islamist racism and terrorism is going to hurt the feeling of the Muslims who have declared war on the West and the Jews. And I expect the vast majority of Muslims, who are peaceful, to stand en masse behind Robert Spencer, supporting his critique of violent and racist extremism that is committed in the name of Islam. There is copious discussion of the importance of reform in Islam. Robert Spencer is helping us understand why reform is important, what parts of Islam need to be reformed, and why we have to align ourselves with moderate Muslims. Again, this is work that the moderate Muslims themselves are already doing, and that western liberals have already accepted as important. And yet, they are still freaked out by people doing this work.

Now, what happens if we take the position that we should not criticize Islamist racism and terrorism? In that case, we put ourselves in the terrible position of not being able to analyze, criticize, or defend ourselves from Islamist racism and terrorism. This is a contradictory position: if you are for human rights and against racism, then racism and terrorism need to be analyzed, criticized, and opposed. Silence is not a sensitive concession to the Muslim community, it is a capitulation to the terrorists—who, I might remind you, are far, far, far to the right of Bush and Cheney.

I would say that I am in agreement with the liberals on the big issues: racism and terrorism are bad and community building is crucial. The big difference, as far as I can see, is that the liberals (including western governments and media outlets) are nervous about publicly analyzing and criticizing Islamist racism and terrorism. They are happy to criticize Western racism but extremely anxious about criticizing Islamist racism. I hope I have shown that this anxiety is irrational and untenable as a political position in a global, multi-cultural world—and that it also contradicts their own values.

I would go even further by arguing that our community building should (as much as possible) encourage Muslims to stand up against Islamist racism and terrorism – in Canada, in Europe, around the world, and as visibly as possible at the UN. I hope we are in agreement about that, even if that is not work that the liberals have the stomach for.

This issue, while uncomfortable and inconvenient, is one of the most important global political issues. Sectarian violence is killing tens of thousands of Muslims throughout the Muslim world; some Muslims communities are ethnically cleansing their minority populations; and Muslims are attacking Jews all over the world. Muslim leaders all over the world are encouraging racism and violence against Jews—as everyone knows. Regardless of the percentage of Muslims who hold these views (regardless of how tiny the minority), the racism and violence are real, destructive, and morally repugnant. I am grateful to Robert Spencer for trying to be honest about this issue (despite the personal danger), and frankly, I am disappointed that the local Muslim community did not come out en masse to his talk in Calgary to support him in combatting racism and terrorism. Islamist violence should inspire reflection and reformation, not useless, cowardly, and suspicious defensiveness.

My only qualifier is that the motivation for this work must be ethical. If you are going to oppose Islamist racism and terrorism, you need to do it as a way of protecting human rights. Multiculturalism only works in conjunction with other fundamental ethical and political values, including universal human rights, freedom from discrimination, equal rights for women, separation of church and state, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. Freedom of religion should never extend to the freedom of one religion to oppress another. You have a right to practice your religion in any way you want, and wherever and whenever you want, but never at the expense of my rights and freedoms, never in a way that discriminates against and oppresses others. I will tolerate all of your values and peccadillos — but not racism and discrimination. That’s where communities have to the draw the line, and do so for the good of the community and its members. This will also be great for the vast majority of Muslims who are peaceful. But take caution because it won’t be very nice for the terrorists.

Joel Shapiro, Ph.D., is a former athlete, scholar, and business person. He now helps organizations find the perfect blend of humanity and business performance.

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: dhimmitude, Featured, Islamic supremacism, Robert Spencer Tagged With: Syed Soharwardy


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Xero_G says

    May 4, 2016 at 5:26 pm

    Criticize Islam (an IDEOLOGY) and the Left only hears you criticizing Muslims (PERSONS) and according to the Left, you should not judge or speak ill of other persons.

    The Left also uses the same logic in reverse: saying they know of a moderate, peaceful MUSLIM (of which there are many) so that must prove that, ISLAM is moderate, and peaceful?!

    I see this time and time again.

    • mortimer says

      May 5, 2016 at 12:41 am

      Muslims are touchy about criticism. So touchy, in fact that mullahs say, ‘There is no humor and no jokes in Islam.’

      However, there was a Muslim comic who announced he was going to tell jokes about Islam, the prophet and jihad anyway. He promised his audience they would die laughing.

  2. Nathanael Hoernlé says

    May 4, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    While I think Mr. Shapiro’s assessment is good and I agree with him, I would alert anyone who might be expressing opinions like these that opposition to them will go much further than Mr. Shapiro details.

    Opponents do not stop at asserting that the Quran must not be criticized because it is someone’s holy book – they ransack the Old Testament for equally violent passages. Muslims themselves will always argue that counsels of violence in the Quran refer only to a time and place, to a special, long dead, situation, and that this argument must be allowed with equivalence to both sacred texts.

    References to the terrorist violence that actually has been perpetrated by Muslims will always be countered by reminders that there is a “Lord’s Army” in Uganda that considers itself to be fighting for Christianity, or that the Ku Klux Klan considers itself Christian. Dismiss those as not really Christian and the same demand that equivalency must apply will be trotted out.

    With Islam revealing its dangerous side with an unparalleled persistence, the persistence in whitewashing it is just as insistent, by no means only from Muslims.

    • Joel Shapiro says

      May 4, 2016 at 5:40 pm

      Spencer’s response to that retort is “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” I think that is sufficient. Their critique of the Christian crusades assumes that religious war is bad. They criticize the crusades. So to use the badness of the crusades as a way to justify the goodness of Islamic Jihad is contradictory–in addition to being morally repugnant.

      • Nervous Gentleman says

        May 4, 2016 at 9:07 pm

        Joel,

        As a fellow Calgarian, I would suggest that you examine closer the implications of your own heart-felt observation: “I am disappointed that the local Muslim community did not come out en masse to his talk in Calgary to support him in combatting racism and terrorism.” I put it to you that you are flat out wrong in comfortable asserting in the previous sentence that “the percentage of Muslims who hold [Islamist] views” are a “tiny…minority.” This applies, as well, to the Muslims of Calgary. I remind you that over the past couple of decades this city has witnessed numerous demonstrations by Muslims ostensibly protesting against one or another putative action by the Israelis. As their numbers have grown, so too have the number of demonstrators. At the infamous July 2014 protest there were well over a thousand. Only a fraction of this number participated in the few anti-terrorism demonstrations organised by Calgary Muslims (e.g. June, 2014), and then only in response to terrorist atrocities inflicted against their brethren in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. Never has there been a demonstration of Calgary Muslims protesting Islamic terrorism afflicted upon non-Muslims, let alone Israelis. In short, in reference to building bridges with the local Muslim community, you strike me as wildly optimistic and somewhat naive. To a certain extent, one could likewise dismiss your efforts at reasoning with starry-eyed Leftists as an equally fruitless endeavor. You seriously underestimate, I think, the fascination that irrationality, particular in the guise of religion and ideology, has for some people. Finally, I would add that the fact you are presumably Jewish automatically makes you suspect in the eyes of most Muslims, Leftists and the Far Right. Hence, you are really only preaching to the choir and not those to whom your appeals are directed.

      • mortimer says

        May 5, 2016 at 12:50 am

        The Crusades were begun to stop the advance of Islamic armies into Constantinople, into Italy and then into central Europe.

        Canada will have more jihad attacks soon. It’s inevitable as more Muslims arrive in Canada. Jihad is an obligation for all Muslims. Anyone who doesn’t understand that is a total fool.

        The present Canadian government is led by naïve fools.

        • mortimer says

          May 5, 2016 at 4:21 am

          The provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights guaranteeing the ‘right to life, liberty and THE SECURITY OF THE PERSON’ mean in practice that the Government of Canada is obligated to defend the SECURITY of anyone who criticizes Islam.

          Think about that, Canadians.

        • maghan says

          May 5, 2016 at 6:19 am

          Clearly, a Muslim who does not accept racism–blacks for Muhammad were “raisin heads” and he believed that 1 white slave was worth 2 black slaves–sexism–Muhammad believed that women were naturally inferior to men–,the killing of apostates, 6 year old children marrying 50 year old men, lashing and stoning transgressors, is not a real Muslim. All the above behaviors are sanctioned in Islam and were practiced by the founder of the religion itself, Muhammad.

        • Bob says

          May 5, 2016 at 7:03 am

          The crusades began after something like 400 years of muslim barbarisms on Christianity! They were a reaction to the Islamists of the time.

    • Jay Boo says

      May 5, 2016 at 1:44 am

      As has been said many times before.

      Violence in the Bible is generally descriptive whereas in the Koran it is proscriptive.

      • maghan says

        May 5, 2016 at 6:21 am

        Just hope that “proscriptive” is a typo.

        • Jay Boo says

          May 5, 2016 at 11:38 pm

          Ooops
          ‘pre’

      • Raja says

        May 6, 2016 at 12:15 pm

        Jay, Yes you are right about violence in Bible and they are descriptive as being truthful. Also remember that God prescribed some barbaric tribes to be exterminated for the overall PEACE but the Jews, then God’s people did not obey Him. As a consequence Goliath the bully rose in their midst. (He was challenging God too besides the Jews) But NO WHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT IS there any prescription to even HATE anyone leave alone killing. Jesus went step one step further. He said committing a murder in the “heart” would be murder.
        Prescriptive violence found in Koran just because some one is NOT a Muslim or some nation is not Islamic.

        Islamist have been taught that Jesus was WEAK GUY AND SO ARE Christians. They just cannot see What God requires of man/mankind.

    • Demsci says

      May 5, 2016 at 3:43 am

      Nathanael, very well said, I noticed this myself countless times, when in discussion about Islam with both Muslims and numerous prejudiced, but also very well-intentioned (because trying to be fairminded to all) Westerners. Who, when in the company of Muslim(s) and me, chose the side of the Muslims, more often than not.

      These people use the Tu Quoque-fallacy, I think. But they stop at superficial comparing Islam with other religions and always with the intention to, sort of, exonerate Islam.

      For me it is virtually impossible to win such discussions. But the point I then try to make; Is, in a context of a democratic, and yes, prosperous and happy society the influence of the Islamic ideology on aggregate beneficial or detrimental? Then I argue with links between Islamic core texts and preachers and leader’s rhetoric and the behavior of so many Muslims, that the influence of Islam is detrimental. Regardless of whether or not other religions also have detrimental influences.

      But the eternal Tu Quoque-arguments is mostly what I got back. It is a comfort that I from my side, can do Tu Quoque quite well too, and that Muslims et al find it very tough to “let Islam look BETTER than other religions” in my presence, although they do succeed in preventing that “other religions look better than Islam”. They at best can reach some sort of “draw”.

      And that I am able to add that for God to intervene in human affairs like he supposedly did with introducing Islam, it is not good enough to merely score a draw with the other religions, and so not adding anything of unique value through Islam.

      I say to Muslims; Yes, you defend Islam well, but “God has to win”! to let Islam be divine and make sense.

      I have seen all Muslims who heard that make a quick exit or change the subject immediately.

    • Western Canadian says

      May 5, 2016 at 2:53 pm

      “References to the terrorist violence that actually has been perpetrated by Muslims will always be countered by reminders that there is a “Lord’s Army” in Uganda that considers itself to be fighting for Christianity, or that the Ku Klux Klan considers itself Christian. Dismiss those as not really Christian and the same demand that equivalency must apply will be trotted out.”

      And that is the point at which you should be stressing that these thugs you just mentioned, are ACTING AGAINST CHRISTIAN STANDARDS, WHILE THE MUSLIMS ARE FOLLOWING MAD MO’S LACK OF STANDARDS.

      muslims committing crimes against humanity, a requirement of islam (RTC). Christians behaving as muslims do, all such behaviour prohibited in Christianity. Not a valid comparison, not a valid point by any measure.

    • Michael Copeland says

      May 6, 2016 at 9:43 am

      “…only to a time and place, to a special, long dead, situation”?
      This is standard “taqiyya”, Islam-authorised deception.
      Imam Ahmad Saad of North London Central Mosque makes it clear:
      “the teachings of the Quran are not restricted by time and space.
      They are universal and trans-time.
      They can be applied today as they were applied 1400 years ago,
      and can still be applied till the end of time.”

      http://www.libertygb.org.uk/news/vatican-blind-fundamental-barbarism-islam

  3. jihad3tracker says

    May 4, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    I have not read Dr. Shapiro’s comprehensive post yet, but offer an enthusiastic welcome to him as a contributor and look forward to future blog appearances. Robert Spencer’s more-than-a-decade of 24/7 work has been noticed by ever growing legions of counter-jihadists, and their participation in Jihad Watch authorship widens history and context about the pathology of Islam.

    Pamela Geller, the most courageous living American, wrote yesterday that a war to see which of two ideologies will eventually be victorious HAS ONLY JUST STARTED. She, Robert, David Wood, Nonie Darwish, Brigitte Gabriel, Asra Nomani, Walid Shoebat, Dan Greenfield, and many others unnamed here are not going away anytime soon — even if, in the worst nightmares of devout worshippers of bloodthirsty Allah, that is the ultimate hope.

    • Angemon says

      May 4, 2016 at 6:28 pm

      I second those feelings, jihad3tracker.

  4. linnte says

    May 4, 2016 at 6:15 pm

    Joel Shapiro, is there any News Paper you know of in Canada which might be willing to print the Qur’an in chapters of succession, once a week? It seems to me, the only thing needed is for citizens to read for themselves, what the Qur’an says. Guaranteed some Imam will protest saying “The words of the Qur’an will end up in the recycling, so that would be offensive”, but even so, if you could bring this off on the grounds of freedom of Press, it would be so helpful! Most people don’t want to spend money on a book that doesn’t relate to their life. But they WOULD read it in a paper!

    • healer says

      May 4, 2016 at 7:37 pm

      healer says
      May 4, 2016 at 6:52 pm

      linnte here is a resource…..

      http://www.koran-at-a-glance.com

    • maghan says

      May 5, 2016 at 6:26 am

      Or the comments on Islam by learned and intelligent men through the ages. Brainy men like David Hume, George Bernard Shaw, Mark Twain, etc. They all had very negative things to say about Islam.

      • Bob says

        May 5, 2016 at 7:05 am

        Not to forget Winston Churchill’s very negative comments on Islam!

      • Michael Copeland says

        May 6, 2016 at 9:07 am

        See “Book Reviews: The Koran”
        http://www.libertygb.org.uk/news/book-reviews-koran

  5. Angemon says

    May 4, 2016 at 6:31 pm

    (As you know, everyone who opposes Islamism gets death threats.)

    And not just from muslims.

    Spencer is not painting all Muslims with the same brushstroke; he is not generalizing to all Muslims; he never claims that all Muslims are terrorists.

    Unfortunately there are some people who are adamant that we say “ALL” muslims, no matter what – ALL muslims should be generalized about, ALL muslims should be painted with the same brush stroke, ALL muslims are terrorists.

    • Demsci says

      May 5, 2016 at 4:23 am

      Angemon, this “Painting all Muslims with the same brushstoke” is THE biggest objection, and counter-argument by political correct people, including journalists, politicians, every time Islam is criticized. It is simply “Total Verboten”, it is a huge discussion-stopper.

      It seems to me that it is this objection that keeps counterjihadists from reaching a majority agreement with the whole population in the Democratic Nations,

      which leads to the stalemate we experience in politics in relation to countermeasures to Islam or radical Islam only?

      But my logic goes like this; Either we say that Islam is mono-interpretable and un-reformable, but that then means that the distinction between radical and moderate Muslims is only a question of the degree in which a Muslims knows and practice this mono-interpretable Islam. And the radicals are the ones that know and practice Islam best. The rest of Muslims then are “Potential Radicals”.

      When counterjihadists believe this, and many state they do, then to me for them there is no meaningful distinction between radicals and moderate Muslims and that to me means “Painting all Muslims with the same brush” IS being done by those counterjihadists, namely the “painting” of all Muslims being either a full-blown or only a potential radical practicing Muslim.

      And I too am out of arguments to argue differently, but this means that the best we can hope for is massive conversion of Muslims out of Islam,

      because it surely means that no “pro-democracy Islam” is viable. And there can be no substantial number of “democratic Muslims”. I have accepted by now that Muslims by and large are pro-totalitarian state.

      And I am starting to try to find out how many truly democratic people there are among the Non-Muslims. For instance are the left, political correct people really ” in it for full democratic system and the core democratic nations”? I suspect that in majority they are questionable, very tepid and non-committed on democracy and loyalty.

      • Western Canadian says

        May 5, 2016 at 2:58 pm

        “Angemon, this “Painting all Muslims with the same brushstoke” is THE biggest objection, and counter-argument by political correct people, including journalists, politicians, every time Islam is criticized. It is simply “Total Verboten”, it is a huge discussion-stopper.”

        Find ans listen to the talk given by Robert Spencer in Calgary…. He deals with this straw man argument VERY effectively.

        • Demsci says

          May 5, 2016 at 5:07 pm

          You are right, he does and it is a strawman argument.

          However, in the mind of so many political correct people, when you say that Islam is an ideology that is basically incompatible with the full democratic system; then they conclude that you think that all Muslims as a consequence are either full-blown or potential adherents to an anti-democratic political system and that for the Political Corrects already means that ….

          You paint all Muslims with the same brush!

  6. healer says

    May 4, 2016 at 6:52 pm

    linnte here is a resource…..

    http://www.koran-at-a-glance.com

  7. Draki says

    May 4, 2016 at 7:01 pm

    Doesn’t the Koran outright call for discrimination just with the jizya?

  8. mortimer says

    May 5, 2016 at 12:16 am

    Joel Shapiro has discovered the double standards of Western so-called liberals who have actually abandoned liberalism and adopted a form of fascism called ‘political correctness’. These so-called liberals want to limit free speech so that only their one-sided messages are transmitted and never criticized.

    They use the heckler’s veto and other Alinskyite methods.

    Most of these so-called liberals are actually elitists who have no hard knowledge of Islam, but preposterously present themselves as experts on Islam without having read Islam’s foundational source texts, the Sira, hadiths, Koran, classical commentaries, manuals of Sharia law and books of Islamic history. These Leftist elties (such as Canadian Liberals) spout conjecture about Islam and state their guesses as fact. This is irresponsible and dangerous.

    Practically all Canadian Liberals are unaware even of the names of all the books they have not read. Shame on them for making policy out of a gaping lacuna of ignorance.

    • vcragain says

      May 5, 2016 at 6:20 am

      They are all really just trying to be ‘fair’ to any religion, we don’t have to read whatever book Jehovah’s witnesses read to agree to let them attend their ‘church’ or go on a Saturday. The point really is that people trying to be PC (ie fair) do not realize that Islam is NOT ‘just another religion’ but is in fact an actual threat to Western civilization. Therein lies the problem. If/once they DO realize the difference their attitude WILL change, but that may take a long time, and if we are not careful we may have big problems in Western society before we admit it is NOT ‘just a religion’ !

      • maghan says

        May 5, 2016 at 6:31 am

        Am curious about this: do liberals express the same kind of support for the North Korean regime? In their phony quest for “fairness” do they support China’s version of communism?

      • Western Canadian says

        May 5, 2016 at 2:48 pm

        “The point really is that people trying to be PC (ie fair)”

        And where did you get the incredible and total false notion that anyone who is PC has any interest at all in being ‘fair’??

        Politically Correct people are total morons, ignorant beyond excuse, bigoted against Western civilization and achievements, and almost as much of a threat to civilization as a whole, as are the devout muslims themselves.

        • Demsci says

          May 5, 2016 at 5:27 pm

          No, Western Canadian, I am with vcragain on this, at least on a great many of occasions when such an attitude arose in discussions, among family, colleagues, but also in the news (for instance, is Ben Affleck not someone who desires to be fair to Muslims? If you remember his outburst against Bill Maher and Sam Harris).

          But you are right that they are ignorant and arrogant. Arrogant because of judging with prejudice without properly informing themselves about both Islam and Democratic System/ Human rights/ Golden rule, and the contradictions between those and Islam.

        • Western Canadian says

          May 5, 2016 at 8:22 pm

          Is Ben Affleck not someone with a very lucrative contract with middle eastern interests? I Ben Affleck not someone who does not allow people who do NOT march in lockstep with him, to freely express opinions/

          Not fair in any way, shape or form.

        • Jay Boo says

          May 5, 2016 at 8:56 pm

          Demsci’s example of Ben Affleck attempting to be fair is a very poor choice.

          Ben Affleck was playing to the camera and flaunting his supposed goodness while slandering anyone who disagreed with him.

          Ben is a smart-pants PC dictator.

        • Demsci says

          May 6, 2016 at 4:40 am

          Well, I was fooled by Ben then, but it looked genuine enough, I suppose.

          What I really am in agreement with Western Canadian, though,

          them trying to be fair or not, the Political Correct people are dangerous. And because of ignorance and disinterest in true and comprehensive Democratic knowledge and practice, esp. in concern with freedom of speech.

          Combined with willful ignorance about true Islam. And that in this respect true Democratic patriots may indeed view them as not better or not much better than Muslims.

          If we do an experiment and view ALL citizens in our nations; we may no longer consider Muslims the negative deviation from the norm, as there are many more essentially un-democratic citizens. But we may consider the tried and true democratic patriots as “positive exception” from a new norm.

          And, Jay Boo, (in case you see me as you see Mortimer) I am no expert in anything I admit, and I will try not to sound arrogant, it is just that I have this huge passion for the topic Islam and Democracy and have collected by now quite some knowledge about it.

      • Raja says

        May 6, 2016 at 12:27 pm

        vcragain,

        Islam wants to destroy not just Western civilization but EVERY thing that is not Islamic.It is their culture wherein they justify killing but saying he/they deserve it. The so called peaceful Muslims have the same mentality.

  9. mortimer says

    May 5, 2016 at 12:35 am

    Western liberalism began with the right to disagree with the state religion.

    Now Western ‘progressives’ have turned their backs on that right. They now tell us we may criticize any religion save for Islam.

    Why is Islam the only faith that may not be criticized? They need to explain that.

    • Western Canadian says

      May 5, 2016 at 1:38 am

      “Western liberalism began with the right to disagree with the state religion.”

      Rubbish… It’s roots go back much farther than that, and include many, many other rights as well. It is the result of a combination of Greek, Roman, Jewish and Christian thought and development… Western ‘liberalism’ rejecting slavery, began with the growing Jewish rejection of the same, millennia ago.

      • mortimer says

        May 5, 2016 at 4:05 am

        I see that you are looking back to Hammurabi, etc. The liberalism to which I refer began in the Enlightenment in the mid-seventeenth century culminating in the liberation of science from theology.

        The ‘progressives’ of today (Liberal Party of Canada) are trying to grant Islam a ‘special pleading’ to avoid the rules that all other religions follow. They grant Muslims the unique right of not hearing criticism of Islam, but these same ‘progressives’ never explain why Muslims have this special right…that is, apart from calling Islamo-critics ‘racist’. The Liberals have not shown how Islam (a political ideology) can be a race.

        • Western Canadian says

          May 5, 2016 at 6:22 am

          “I see that you are looking back to Hammurabi”

          You see no such thing, as I am not. I referred specifically to the incredible and very early questioning and eventual rejection of slavery, by Jews, thousands of years ago. And your notion of ‘science’ being ‘liberated’ from theology, is rubbish.

        • Jay Boo says

          May 5, 2016 at 9:35 pm

          Mortimer, you truly are quite shameless in presenting your rubbish as if it were a gift of wisdom.

    • Jay Boo says

      May 5, 2016 at 9:05 pm

      Mortimer said,
      “Western liberalism began with the right to disagree with the state religion. ”

      Such a profound sounding statement.
      Reality must now bow in submission.

  10. Western Canadian says

    May 5, 2016 at 1:28 am

    Since there is a chance that the author of this otherwise in general excellent article MAY have been playing with the cbc and other supposed defenders of human rights, by suggesting that they ARE defenders of human rights…..

    The so called human rights commissions are anything but commissions interested in HUMAN rights, but are collections of hard left loons, liars and hypocrites who have NO interest in HUMAN rights, but are only interested in their own power and control over anyone who dares to not march in brain dead lock step with them and their own intense bigotry. They have a scale of human rights, with muslims currently at the top, and Christians of any variation firmly not at, but UNDER the bottom. A heterosexual is garbage compared to a homosexual, a man is garbage compared to a woman…. You get the general idea…

    As for the idea that the cbc is in any way removed from the above description, or that the left does not share exactly the same beliefs and attitudes…. open your eyes, they are all of the same kind.

  11. Demsci says

    May 5, 2016 at 3:59 am

    Joel Shapiro, I read your article with great interest and admiration and agree to a very large extent.

    However, to me the big elephant in the room that is not addressed in this article is the question whether or not it is, sort of, Total un-reformable Islam, that is the problem

    or that there is a legitimate division among “Radical Islamist Muslims” and “pro-democratic Muslims who actually choose the side of the democratic nations over the side of the totalitarian Muslims. Such pro-democratic Muslims do exist, and Zuhdi Jasser and Irshad Manji and Majid Nawaz are examples, but they are very very marginal and despised and shunned by the vast majority of Muslims.

    But the opposite of radical Muslims are in the opinion of me and many not just tepid neutral moderate Muslims, who, due to the Islamic core-texts and the Islamic schools of thought, are in essence potential radical Muslims.

    A typical reaction from them to the radicals that they, the moderates condemn the radicals and their actions. But I think that is of no value, as they can easily say in private; “And we condemn America, the West, Democracy even more”. The question really should be which of the 2 evils in their eyes they condemn more and which they support most.

    And so I noticed the other day with Alternative fur Deutschland that they, like so many counterjihadists, were loath, refusing, to make this distinction between Radical and Moderate Muslims, and view Islam, as a whole, as the enemy ideology. And not just one variety of the many possible interpretations of Islam.

    And I would like to see you address this vexed question; Are we, democratic citizens and nations, up against the whole esential Islamic Ideology, or just against those Muslims with the supremacist, violent interpretation of Islam?

    • Joel Shapiro says

      May 5, 2016 at 12:27 pm

      That is a huge question. This is how I navigate it (not saying I have it right yet): Many Muslims claim they are moderates and that they are reforming Islam. I am a trusting guy and an optimist and take them at their word. But I also want to see them act accordingly–they need to show up and support Spencer when he speaks; they need to confront Islamism at the United Nations; they have to have rallies that criticize (versus promote) antisemitism–which runs broad and deep in the Muslim world–and they need to criticize all who are funding Jihad against Jews & Israel… My critique of racism and terrorism extends only to the racists and terrorists–and those who fund and promote them. Only time will tell how small a minority they are in the global Muslim community. And only time will tell how successful the reformers will be. But I wish them luck and success. And I see the reformers as allies in the fight against Islamic racism and terrorism. So, your question applies directly to the fundamentalists: how willing are you to reform; are you going to reject the supremacist aspects of your religion; will uphold local laws (civil law) over and above Sharia; will you accept democracy; etc.? Without deep changes like that, reform will not happen. Muslims unwilling to make those kinds of changes — Muslims who hold those kinds of beliefs are technically still at war with the West & Jews. Or to use a common (but nerve-wracking) phrase, that kind of Islam is (still) incompatible with western civilization. A core element of western civ is the separation of church and state. Holding Sharia above the state is incompatible with western civ.

      • Demsci says

        May 5, 2016 at 4:57 pm

        Thanks for good answer, yes I am an optimistic guy too. In Rotterdam, Holland I have many dealings with Muslims. And the ones I meet are almost unswervingly cordial and polite to me and I always respond in kind.

        It creates a cognitive dissonance in me when I know I am convinced that the full democratic system is the best there is and I also know that mainstream Islam is in essence against important tenets, values of that system.

        Which really means that all Muslims are practicing Islam to a high or low level, but highr or low, ALL are as a result in favor of the totalitarian state, by virtue of following Islam.

        If there are Muslims who choose the Democratic system over the Theocratic system then they seldom openly say it and should they declare it, it is necessary for them to argue how it is uberhaupt possible to be both Muslim AND in favor of Democratic system.

        But, I realized, I can forgive Muslims to be either fullblown or potential “Totalitarian Theocratic Staters” because I am no longer sure that a majority of non-Muslims really is that democracy-minded as I always thought everyone in a democratic society was.

        My new model of thinking now is: Yes, a minority in Democratic Nations IS fully democratic minded and very loyal to the Democratic Nations. And these to me are the positive exception. Let us hope they expand and win.

        But the majority of citizens are really not very much convinced democratic-minded!

        Some are downright totalitarian-state-minded (in this category fall almost all Muslims, but so also many non-Muslims, like many leftists).

        And so Muslims are no longer the only un-democratic people, and no longer the single negative deviation of the Democracy-minded norm for me.

        And so I can with good conscience be as cordial to Muslims and Non-Muslims alike without this feeling of hypocrisy I would have had if I believed Muslims were the only UN-Democratic people in a “sea of nearly only Pro-democratic Westerners”, because I now doubt such a sea exists and even whether a majority of Westerners even still IS democracy-minded.

  12. Jack Diamond says

    May 5, 2016 at 4:03 am

    “apes and pigs” comes right outta the Qur’an, which is why it then comes out of Muslim communities and Muslim leaders. It comes from Allah and Muhammad, not them. Do you really think Muslims deny such a thing? They do not. The Qur’an doesn’t just talk about Jews as apes and pigs (and that transformation was a curse they brought on themselves). They cause all the corruption in the earth and the wars, they are and will remain the greatest enemies of the Muslims, they are cursed by God, in rebellion, changed the words of Scripture, practice sorcery, and are the worst of creatures in Creation (but so are the Christians). Because Islam is an appropriation of the Jewish and Christian religions, it abrogates and replaces them, and it hates and punishes them (Allah punishes through them) for their crimes. That’s Islam. Do many Muslims believe in Islam? “What kind of person teaches their community and their children that other peoples are apes and pigs?”–an orthodox Muslim.

    Islam, of course, is not a race and it is not racism to oppose the ideology. But nor are Islamic supremacists being racist for waging war against all non-Islamic beliefs. The killing (convert, die, or be subjugated) called for in Suras 9:5 or 9:29 is not based on people’s race but on what people believe or don’t believe about Allah and Muhammad. Does Mr. Shapiro think the majority of Muslims reject those teachings? Or don’t know about them? Or only a tiny minority take them literally? In Islam, Muslims wage Jihad (open or stealth), “terrorism” on the other hand, has no ideology and is a word game. All Muslims say they reject terrorism. Terrorism is only committed against Muslims! Muslims, on the other hand, wage legitimate resistance. (Everything else must be the Mossad at work).

    “Which Muslims will be offended by criticism of racism and terrorism? The vast majority of Muslim are peaceful and don’t want racism and terrorism any more than we do….the only Muslims who will be offended by a critique of racism and terrorism are the racists and terrorists themselves—a tiny minority of Muslims.”

    I don’t know about “racism and terrorism” but most Muslims will be offended by any perceived criticism of Islam and Muhammad. Unfortunately Islam and Muhammad are synonymous with: Islamic supremacism, mandated hate & enmity toward non-Muslims, and obligatory Jihad to conquer the world for Allah. Those are the contents of the Qur’an and Sunnah. That is the example of Muhammad, the model of conduct and perfect man. It is Islam that opposes democracy (man-made law, equality of non-Muslims with Muslims), opposes human rights as we know them, denies freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience. That oppresses women. That is at war with disbelievers. Islam that sanctions lying. Islam that demands Muslims act one way when they are weak and vulnerable and another way, entirely, when they have the upper hand. Do many Muslims believe in Islam?

    Islam should be opposed in the name of human rights and by showing the suffering it brings in a way everyone can understand…but the problem with Islam is not peripheral, it is at its core. And, well, there is a reason Muslims do not “stand en masse behind Robert Spencer” as Mr. Shapiro expects they would.

    • mortimer says

      May 5, 2016 at 4:11 am

      Mr. Shapiro is perhaps unaware that almost all Muslims agree upon Jew hatred. To discover this in Muslims from any country, casually mention the support America gives to Israel and stand back for fireworks. Ask them if they know all the things ‘powerful Jews’ control…then wait for the paranoia. In point of fact, most of the things that are supposedly owned by Jews turn out to be owned by mega-rich white Protestants. Sorry, Muslims…you’re wrong again.

    • Demsci says

      May 5, 2016 at 4:52 am

      Jack Diamond, I have tried to be teachable and changeable. And think now that I have by and large come around to your opinion, way of thinking.

      I augment this with the idea that I also try to find out what it is that democratic citizens should be FOR, what for them is BETTER THAN ISLAM. And to me this is about full democratic system, and tenets, laws, values, esp. freedom of speech. And first and foremost loyalty to the Democratic “Heartlands”.

      I keep in mind that Islam was first and Our Democratic system came later and improved upon it. And now Islam and, in varying degrees, (virtually all) Muslims are obstacles for it’s success.

      BUT I now more and more realise how dangerously BIG the number of committed dedicated Muslims is, and how really small the number of truly committed dedicated pro-Democratic citizens are. But hopefully this group is growing and somehow preserving it’s heritage.

      • Jack Diamond says

        May 5, 2016 at 11:51 am

        Whatever you or I think about Islam or want to believe about Islam is beside the point, it is not going to make Muslims “reform” Islam and it is not going to prevent Muslims from “reforming” Islam. Nothing prevents the majority of Muslims from doing everything you want. If they wanted to. Right now, this minute. Exhausting yourself worrying about how to make it happen is futile. You can’t make it happen. I can’t prevent it from happening by saying Islam cannot be reformed. The only question here is who is observing reality more clearly & truthfully.

        If they were all flocking to Zudhi Jasser. If millions of Muslims were taking to the streets to angrily protest, not perceived infidel “insults” but each and every jihad attack upon infidels, condemning each and every jihad group by name, without word games. Reporting every plot and plotter to authorities, driving out the imams and mosques teaching jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism and instead teaching permanent peace with non-Muslims and the equality before the law of all people. Not pushing shari’a norms, in fact consigning them to history; rejecting or reinterpreting all the violent and hateful verses of their scriptures, the example of Muhammad; apologizing to the world and begging forgiveness for fourteen centuries of suffering, persecution, hate and murder. For the rivers of blood and mountains of corpses imposed on their fellow human beings all for the cause of AllahMuhammad.
        Not likely? Why not?

        Obviously nothing remotely like that is happening. Yet nothing is stopping Muslims en masse from being what you expect them to be. Nothing but Islam and their being Muslim. Nothing except Islam means “submission” and a Muslim is one who submits, not one who thinks for themselves. That there are all kinds of Muslim people, Muslim-in-name-only Muslims, secular Muslims (Muslims with little or no “faith”, as a son described the murdered blasphemy law opponent Salmaan Taseer), Muslim intellectuals desperate to save the reputation of Islam and Muhammad by scapegoating Wahhabis or salafis or the hadiths, or the legalists, or the early caliphs as the point “where everything went wrong”–doesn’t ever change anything, Islam remains Islam.

        We are not the problem, who bring up such matters. Neither can we wait around for Muslims to decide to reform Islam (while the House burns down). What we can do is impose that “reform” upon them. What we can do is not tolerate any jihad, any shari’a, any Islamic supremacism regardless of how pro or anti-Democratic Muslims actually are. Doing that requires we, infidels, know exactly what those doctrines are and why we would never ever tolerate them. Because Islam is at war with us. Islam. At war. With us.

        • Demsci says

          May 5, 2016 at 5:16 pm

          Yes, Jack, your realistic assessment was right all along. It was only the terrible meaning in real life of that assessment that was so hard to accept for me. Living as I am in a city with hundred thousand Muslims (Rotterdam) and having so many, almost solely, cordial or neutral interactions with them. You may know that Rotterdam has a Muslim mayor, who is widely respected (also by me); Ahmed Aboutaleb.

          But Islam is not at war with all of “us” Jack, only with the truly committed democracy-minded people among us and that is by far not all non-Muslims among us. Many among us are only tepid, and some are downright “totalitarian-state-minded” I now think.

        • Jack Diamond says

          May 5, 2016 at 11:23 pm

          Can’t say I envy you living in what some have called the capital of Eurabia.
          http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1338480?eng=y

          I’m afraid I don’t know the politics there real well. Aboutaleb has said some good things, no doubt, “integrate or leave” etc. It’s also seems clear that he was appointed mayor because he does say the right things for Dutch ears, since Rotterdam is also the home of the “anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant” movement, of Pim Fortuyn and Geert Wilders.

          He represents the triumph of the multicultural project, doesn’t he? He is the face of Moderate Islam (even if most of Rotterdam seems to represent the future of an Islamized Holland, and even if in his positions there is no Islam in sight). I don’t know what his personal beliefs are, if he is like that taqiyya-purveyor professor Tariq Ramadan, who used to teach in Rotterdam, or is genuinely secularized. I know he is the son of an imam. Was he not quoted saying he wouldn’t want to see his daughter with a Dutchman or non-Muslim? Did he not say some things about Pim Fortuyn, while he was alive, that his movement was racist and would lead to Auschwitz for Muslims? I can’t find the quote, just had heard of it. My guess would be Aboutaleb, whatever his virtues, serves a larger purpose in the colonization of your country and the neutralizing of opposition, the “anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant” movement. From what I read there is as much discontent with him among the Muslims for some of these statements, as there is adulation from the infidels.

        • Jack Diamond says

          May 5, 2016 at 11:55 pm

          to clarify, I meant discontent by some Muslims with some of his statements after the murder of Theo Van Gogh, or the Charlie Hebdo attack, the defense of freedom of speech, of drawing Muhammad etc.–not his statement about his daughter or about Pim Fortuyn and Auschwitz, lol.

        • Demsci says

          May 6, 2016 at 4:24 am

          Jack, well done, I am truly amazed about your high level of knowledge about Aboutaleb and Rotterdam, and Pim Fortuyn, a VERY special politician, who is sorely mourned and missed by many Rotterdammers. You know, he had many things in common with Donald Trump. Oh, NOT in character, or erudition, they were complete opposites in that respect, but in, I don’t know, their SPECIAL APPEAL, and I daresay, their stand in opposition to Islam and Political Correctness first and foremost.

          Well, let’s see; the socialist party is still a party of Democratic principles and so on principle Aboutaleb must be in agreement with core democratic principles. And he indeed asserts as much. And ostensibly combines this with being Muslim. But by now, I think this is truly an illogical position, only tenable for lack of knowledge of both true Democracy and true Islam and lack of logically reasoning from there.

          Well, we will keep on popping up on this website and exchange views, I hope. I wish you especially well, as I think you and I share this love and concern for true democracy. (and science too, hence the name DEM-SCI).

  13. mortimer says

    May 5, 2016 at 4:18 am

    Here is why it is ‘IMPERMISSIBLE’ to criticize Islam (though Liberals naively don’t know any of the following):

    Sharia permits the murder of anyone who verbally opposes Islam, since they are at war with Islam:
    “There is no indemnity obligatory for killing a non-Muslim (harbi) at war with Muslims.” -Reliance of the Traveller, o4.17, p.593

    Another Sharia manual states:
    “We have already discussed killing the person who, with intent, curses the Prophet, belittles him or slights him in any way. The judgement in this case is clear.” (i.e. the sentence is execution)- from Sharia law manual, “Qadhi Iyaadh in ash-Shifa”, Volume No.2, Page No. 27

    The Koranic defense of the above is the following:
    – K.33.57 “Cursed they will be. Wherever they are found, they are seized and slain.”

    Prohibited ‘Impermissible’ Speech from Reliance of the Traveller:
    Chapter ‘O’ 11.10
    The (DHIMMI) agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:
    -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

    • Jay Boo says

      May 5, 2016 at 9:17 pm

      Mort
      You really are a tyrannical piss ant with your all caps “IMPERMISSIBLE’ ” and “DHIMMI”
      You forgot your old stand-by ,,, Dirty Kafir

      I still have not figure out why you have this constant need to begin so many comments by saying what others (don’t know, unaware, naïve, fools, etc.)
      Can’t your words stand up on their own without such introductory props at what others do not know as opposed to the all wise poo bah … mort?

  14. vcragain says

    May 5, 2016 at 5:30 am

    “Spencer is not painting all Muslims with the same brushstroke” – the problem arises because of the inability to separate “Muslims” from Islam – the CULT. That cult’s TEACHINGS are the issue – what it ‘says’ is what is used literally by the extremists. The large majority of Muslims have a big problem because they just accept what is told them by their leaders. They may not personally feel disposed to violence, but the book teaches exactly that ! The problem for the rest of us is that we HAVE to keep declaring that this cult is DANGEROUS & DECEITFUL or we cannot protect ourselves from it. That IS called Islamophobia. So what we should do is STOP talking about ‘Muslims’ and instead talk only of Islam as a base entity. They cannot tell us that Islam is peaceful – it’s BOOK is violent, and Islam means SUBMISSION. We really need some big publicity about this fact, so that people GET IT and we can make sure that all those NOT within Islam know what it really stands for, right now everybody is confused, and trying to ‘keep the peace’ only further confuses the issue. We need a slogan that says the truth which is something they cannot argue about, therefore not ‘insulting’.
    How about “Islam says kill unbelievers’ ”
    or ‘Islam wants world domination’
    or ‘Islam is a political party’
    or ‘Islam means SUBMISSION’
    ?

  15. TH says

    May 5, 2016 at 8:09 am

    Again more about he majority of muslims being peaceful. The majority of muslims are irrevelant. Either they didn’t know what kind of a character Mahommad was and what the Quran and Hadiths actually teach, or they do know and they are not willing to go out killing, but they may be supporting jihad in other ways. They are a problem. Muslim “prayer” on the streets of Paris is not just religious, it is political. The majority of Germans were not Nazis, but many of them were happy with Hitler’s regime. Communism never ha a majority of Russians, Chinese or any other nationality in the party, but that didn’t stop them from killing 100 million people. . Muslim culture is so penetrated with violence, sexual abuse and a whole lot of other evils that it is totally incompatible with any civilized country. It is also a breeding ground for jihad terrorism. Besides, half the muslim world population, 750 million people are inbred. For this reason alone NO MUSLIM should be allowed to immigrate to any other country. There there is the treatment of women and so on. This writer is worried about discrimination due to race, well in part it is necessary. Muslims have low IQs and that in part is due to inbreeding, but it is also genetic. The differences in intelligence among the various races is a scientifically established fact. Taking this into account is simply taking the truth into account. Islam is a poisonous virus and every care must be taken to prevent it from spreading.

  16. Mark DeFord Eletion says

    May 5, 2016 at 9:05 am

    I agree with much of what Shapiro says, but his use of the word “racism” seems excessive (the word appears some 42 times in the article).

    Not only does he use the word ‘racism’ excessively, he uses an incorrect definition – “(I am using the word racism to cover racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination, including, genocide, ethnic cleansing, sectarian violence, violent Jihad, etc.)”. Ethnic and religious discrimination are not racism, because the two words are not tied to any particular race, and because they are not immutable. They are by definition indicative of an individual’s character, not his genetic makeup.

    • Joel Shapiro says

      May 5, 2016 at 12:38 pm

      Yes, I totally agree. Technically, ethnic and religious discrimination are not forms of racism, which I said. I like to use the word racism only because we all agree that racism is bad (people know what it means). And it saves time from having to say racism and discrimination every time. So just a tiny convenience. But in real life, Islamist ideology promotes racism (e.g., antisemitism) and also ethnic and religious discrimination. And also discrimination against women and homosexuals. And I also agree that I way-over used the word racism. My reason for that was that I wanted to insist that the problem is not just terrorism and but also racism, and so I always used the two terms together. an ugly way to write. Apologies.

  17. Mark says

    May 5, 2016 at 9:24 am

    Islam is a conquest ideology, not a religion.

  18. Florida Jim says

    May 5, 2016 at 9:42 am

    A good book explaining muslims and the lies they tell:

    Book “Radical Islam Why? By Jeffrey F. Addicott. This book explains in great detail why Radical Islam is such a threat worldwide. Both Sunni and Shia and all who believe in the Islamic Laws of Sharia,, Jihad, Conquering the world for Allah by using certain written tenants of the Koran Clearly spell out unequivocal commands for the murder of innocent civilians, “kill one and frighten 10,000 is their motto. He lists 45 branches of the poisonous tree and others appear as new leaders crop up all fighting for the same revival of the Muslim caliphate and the supremacy of the draconian code of Sharia Law. The insidiousness of the secular deity” political correctness” prevents the truth from being told while mocking Christianity or Judaism are allowed in free speech but never Islam. Muslims cloud all discussions using the Muslim doctrine of taqiyya, which allows all muslims to act or speak in a deceptive manner as long as they remain true to core Islamic principles in their mind. Others never know when “taqiyya” is being employed, a recent example of “taqiyya” being employed is ; the Iranians never keep their promises under any nuclear deal with the United States.

    I would say Obama, John Brennan and other Muslims permeating the Obama administration use it regularly and our sorry media is too stupid or politically correct to confront them.

  19. WorkingClassPost says

    May 5, 2016 at 9:53 am

    This article is well thought out, and also well intentioned, but for me it is a case of too little, too late.

    Islam cannot be reformed, because the changes needed would render something other than islam, and that’s been tried and they’re all regarded as unMuslim and apostate.

    Even if it did work now, people would eventually return to the original texts, and we’d be back where we started but probably much less aware of the danger.

    Putting unpleasant things off, invariably makes them far worse, as we’re now finding out.

  20. Don Sharpe says

    May 5, 2016 at 10:00 am

    So very tired of hearing criticism of Islam called racism.
    When I criticize a fascist ideology and offer the opinion that the followers of said ideology are responsible for the very worst of those who claim membership in their cult, I get called a racist?!?
    This is the narrative we need to espouse.
    Your so called ‘religion’ is being hijacked? Then YOU better do something about it.
    We won’t accept any of it and we won’t accept any passive aggressive whining about it.
    Jew Hatred will not be tolerated.
    The Jewish Defence League will confront this true racism whenever it appears.
    The JDL will not back down.

  21. Mike Turner says

    May 5, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    The problem with this article is that it fails to point out the hypocrisy of liberals.

    They will slander and vilify Christians ad hominem, yet Islam is given a free pass. Worse yet, they portray Muslims as a minority victim (of conservative Christians).

  22. UNCLE VLADDI says

    May 5, 2016 at 5:23 pm

    Why do liberals want racial (breed) “equality” so much?! Worldwide, blacks and whites are on par – both weigh in at roughly 15% each, (and ‘whites’ or Caucasians, include Turks and Arabs, for instance) with the other 70% being Hindu/Pakistani types and Asian/Chinese.

    So why is it only the “white” (non-African, non-Asian) countries which must dilute their native members by importing the global majorities?!

    As long a single White man exists in this world he will be the source of all the problems and shortcomings of the 3rd Worlders.

    “The concept of envy — the hatred of the superior — has dropped out of our moral vocabulary … The idea that white Christian civilization is hated more for its virtues than its sins doesn’t occur to us, because it’s not a nice idea.… Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself.

    Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared.

    The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities.”

    – Joseph Sobran –

    This is also why beta-male cucks get on board the racist bandwagon, to make themselves look superior by garnering support outside their own milieu:

    Liberals are racists: they always assume that ONLY White Western people (including, of course, the Jews in Israel,) are INTELLIGENT enough to be guilty of being truly evil, while all their pet “People Of Colour” (including the “swarthy palestinians”) being mentally inferior and all, just can’t help being enslaved by their instincts and emotions into acting as violent animals when frustrated, the poor oppressed little dears, so the liberals will always indulge their crimes, much as one ignores the new puppy as it pees on the rugs.

    So here’s their interminably ongoing “narrative” (story):

    “SO JUST STOP PICKING ON ALL THE THE POOR HELPLESS MENTALLY INFERIOR SWARTHY ANIMAL VICTIMS, YOU EVIL MENTALLY SUPERIOR WHITE BULLIES! YOU KNOW THEY’RE AT THE MERCY OF THEIR ANIMAL INSTINCTS SUCH THAT THEY JUST CAN’T HELP BEING VIOLENT WHEN CONFUSED, SO STOP BAITING AND CONFUSING THEM, YOU HATERS!”

    But these race-traitor Liberals should ask them selves: “How much respect would I imagine I’d get from my swarthy friends if I really was one of them, and I was still a proud race-traitor, but I found myself selling them all out to whitey, instead?”!

    😉

  23. Cameron says

    May 6, 2016 at 7:19 am

    Well said. I have no disagreements with Joel Shapiro.

    I don’t use the word ‘racism’ in exactly the same way that he does (I see ideological and cultural discrimination as different to ethnic or racial discrimination as separate because one can change their culture and ideology whereas ethnicity or race cannot be changed) but his point on the matter is well made anyway.

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

  • 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
  • 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.