The subheading to this piece is “‘Islam is the problem’ and ‘Islam is not the problem’ are equally true and equally false statements—and equally unhelpful for addressing the issues.” “Journalist” Cathy Young apparently intends that statement to be some kind of Zen gateway to insight, but in reality it epitomizes how muddled and ultimately incoherent her piece is.
Young acknowledges that a lot of Muslims are terrorists, but then argues that there are violent Jews and Christians, too, which apparently is supposed to make us feel more sanguine about Islamic jihad terrorism. She grants that there just miiiiight be “inherent traits, doctrinal and historical” within Islam “that make it more predisposed to militarized fundamentalism than Christianity or Hinduism,” but then touts Islamic reformers and warns: “The more ‘anti-jihadists’ conflate Islamism with all Islam and bash ordinary Muslims, the more they boost fears of ‘Islamophobia’—giving an excuse to those who would soft-pedal criticism of radical Islam.”
How Young proposes to separate “Islamism” from Islam she doesn’t bother to explain; she no doubt imagines some unbridgeable chasm between the two, making it not only inconceivable that any “ordinary Muslims” could ever become “Islamists,” but turning those who have noted that “ordinary Muslims” haven’t done much of anything to stop the spread of the jihad ideology in Muslim communities into moral pariahs, to be shunned by all decent folk.
And so she returns yet again to Pamela Geller and me. Last year, after Islamic jihadis tried to murder us in Garland, Texas, Young published not one, but two lengthy and mendacious screeds attacking us (here and here) — and those followed several other broadsides against me over the years: Young is a determined apologist for jihad terror.
And so to set the record straight yet again, below is the salient portion of Young’s latest, with comments interspersed.
“Neither Side’s Overreactions To Islam Are Helping Us,” by Cathy Young, The Federalist, June 23, 2016 (thanks to Lookmann):
…Robert Spencer’s site, Jihad Watch, has suggested that peaceful, non-violent, even secularized Muslims are a danger to the West as long as they have not renounced Islam because they or their children may revert to its more militant forms.
Young’s link goes to a ten-year-old article by Hugh Fitzgerald; Young links to an archive site instead of to Jihad Watch itself, perhaps to imply that the article was scrubbed to hide its insidious content. It wasn’t: it’s right here.
I’ve written 15 books, dozens of booklets, over 1000 articles, and over 40,000 blog posts, and most of what this obsessive smear merchant can find to hit me with are things other people have said. In fact, in ten links Young provides to show how terrible Pamela Geller and I are, only two actually go to anything written by me. One would think that if I were really as vile as Young and her allies make out, they would have some damning quotes that I actually said, rather than having to descend to guilt by association games.
Not that what she has here is damning. As for Hugh Fitzgerald’s piece, Young seems to think it egregious and obviously false to suggest that (in her words, not Hugh’s) “peaceful, non-violent, even secularized Muslims are a danger to the West as long as they have not renounced Islam because they or their children may revert to its more militant forms.” Is Cathy Young aware of how her words look after the child of Muslim immigrants just murdered 49 people in Orlando? Omar Mateen didn’t grow up in a “secularized” family, but certainly in a “peaceful, non-violent” one. Said and Cherif Kouachi, the Charlie Hebdo jihad mass murderers, were born in Paris, the children of Algerian immigrants. Then there is the case of Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, which Hugh discusses in his piece; that he actually exists, actually tried to murder people for Allah and Islam, and was the son of assimilated immigrants seems to bother Cathy Yong not at all; she is sure that the idea that the children of Muslim immigrants might become jihadists is not only ridiculous, but morally wrong to suggest.
Spencer and his ally Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) have repeatedly attacked reformist, anti-Islamist Muslims such as Jasser, Manji, and Muslim convert Stephen Schwartz; Geller has also defended Serb perpetrators of Bosnian genocide as leaders of anti-jihadist resistance.
Typical of a propagandist, as opposed to someone interested in illuminating the truth, is that the propagandist will ignore, rather than examine and deal with, evidence that is at variance with his or her thesis. In this case, Young doesn’t see fit to mention that in February 2014, I defended Jasser against a smear campaign from the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), calling him “a strong voice against Hamas-linked CAIR and other malignant Islamic supremacist forces.” Nor does Young bother to consider Geller’s rebuttal to Jasser’s attack, which you can find here.
As for Manji and Schwartz, those are the only links in Young’s attack that actually lead to things I’ve written. The one about Manji is from 2005; in it, I write: “Here I go again. People will say: you don’t really support Muslim reformers like Manji and Reza Aslan [remember, this was 2005, before Aslan became the charmer he is today]. If you did, you wouldn’t criticize their work. But in fact, I am all for anyone who will confront and combat the causes of Islamic terrorism. All I want them to do is tell the whole truth. Is that too much to ask?” I stand by that, and still wonder if it is too much to ask.
Apparently it is for Cathy Young; in the piece she links about Schwartz, from 2004 (why only ancient research, Ms. Young?), I write: “I was saddened to read Mr. Schwartz’s letter, particularly its heading, since I have never attacked him in any way. I have merely asked questions about his recommendations for a reconfiguration of Islam so as to make it no longer a refuge and motivating force for international terrorists. Had Mr. Schwartz answered these questions honestly, fully, and civilly, we might have been on the way to a fruitful dialogue that could have helped accomplish what he professes to work for: “convincing Muslims of the need for moderation.”
It is extremely careless for Young to take two pieces in which I affirm the Muslim “need for moderation” and declare my support for “anyone who will confront and combat the causes of Islamic terrorism” as evidence that I don’t support sincere Islamic reformers. She is apparently counting on no one clicking on the links; she has played that game before. Young seems to think that moderate Muslims are sacrosanct simply by dint of being moderate, and should be deferred to at all times — never questioned, never engaged in debate, never criticized, however respectfully. They are gods to be revered.
In a weird non-sequitur, Young then veers to Geller’s alleged support for genocide against Muslims. With Cathy Young, always check the links. This one goes to a five-year-old Julia Gorin piece, linked by Geller, explaining that the Serbs were fighting back against Muslim attacks, and acknowledging crimes by Serbian forces: “Whatever proof will be shown of executions by Mladic’s forces of Muslim POWs (and there were a few hundred — though not 8000)…” The details of that conflict are hotly disputed. Young is employing the fashionable tactic of assuming that the claims made by the Muslim side are true, and then casting any disputing of them as support for this genocide. It’s a cheap rhetorical trick, and it further unmasks Young as a viciously biased propagandist, rather than a competent or fair-minded journalist.
Some Indications Islam May Reform
These “anti-jihadists” not only offer a skewed, one-sided take on Islamic history and beliefs but relentlessly hype the “Muslim peril.” Any violent crime by someone of Muslim background can be spun as lone-wolf terrorism, right down to a meth addict’s violent rampage in a Wal-Mart; even caraccidents get enlisted into “vehicular jihad.”
The Wal-Mart story goes to an American Muslim link that resolves directly to a CBS News story. I did my own search to find that Pamela Geller had written about it as “vehicular jihad.” How absurd, right? That hysterical “Islamophobe.” Young appears to want her readers to believe that “vehicular jihad” is a figment of the “Islamophobic” imagination. She doesn’t tell them that in September 2014, the Islamic State told Muslims in the West: “If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car…” Jihadis have hit people with cars in Israel, Austria, France, Canada, and elsewhere. Young is sure it wasn’t in play in the incidents she adduces; yet in an age when authorities so aggressively whitewash such incidents, can she really be sure?
When there is no Muslim connection, one can be fantasized: Geller has obsessively pursued the theory that 2007 Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, a Korean national and a Christian, was a secret jihadi because of his enigmatic “Ismail Ax” arm tattoo.
Obsessively? Remember: with a dishonest writer like Young, check the links. This one goes to a page at Pamela Geller’s site showing 13 posts involving Cho, with the last one dating from 2007, nine years ago. Thirteen posts, mind you, out of over 37,000 posts at PamelaGeller.com. Yes, that’s very obsessive. Anyway, no one has ever explained what the “Ismail Ax” tattoo was all about. Cathy Young, however, is sure it has nothing to do with jihad, and that it’s evidence of being black-hearted and evil to suggest otherwise. How does she know? Because she hates Pamela Geller.
It’s mystifying that this hate-filled woman still pursues her obsessive vendetta against Pamela Geller and me, ten years after her first attack. What’s even more mystifying is that a generally thoughtful publication such as The Federalist would take her seriously enough to publish it. In a remotely sane world, a “journalist” with this little regard for truth and accuracy would have long ago been waiting tables somewhere rather than writing for any publication at all.

biff says
She is the ultimate “useful idiot” of the left.
Face_The_Truth says
Cathy Young loves Islam in her old age!
hmmm says
deep breath, now i know Mr. Spencer and Ms. Geller have been on the front lines, but a movement is underway, now for some painting lessons of mo ham head:
eduardo odraude says
funny! and brave
cs says
This guy has been consistently talking about Islam, I know more than 10 people doing this, they should start to invite Robert to speak out, Gad Saad invitation was a great step forward. I have seen these guys quoting from JW and PAM, so Robert’s legacy is going through this generation, but they did not fully embraced him, though they get what Islam is about. FINALLY.
Michael Copeland says
Don’t mess with Spencer.
Don’t mess with Geller.
Richard Paulsen says
Everyone in hers or his heart knows that islam built the developing World and others the developed.
Champ says
Cathy Young is a Coward!
Instead of taking aim at the real enemy: islam & company, she attempts to demonize those whom do speak the Truth about islam–something she’s too *afraid* to do herself.
Face_The_Truth says
Because, Muslims have not yet thrown Cathy Young into a ditch and started throwing broken pieces of bricks towards Cathy Young’s head — as Allah’s punishment for committing adultery so many times in life.
Tommy says
Islam is DEMONIC, they WORSHIP a pedophile named moo-HAM-id
Face_The_Truth says
World’s Muslims believe that Allah lives inside Saudi Arabia and Islam’s founder Muhammad was the perfect model for all men on earth to imitate.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
I think what’s she’s saying goes something like this: By far most Moslems aren’t terrorists, so they’re good, at least as good as other normal people. It’s the tiny minority of extremists who are the problem. Islam is not a unitary group, even though the tiny minority says that it is and those who deviate from the Holy Ko-Ran are apostates and deserve to be killed. After all, the peaceful Moslems identify themselves as such, so there ya go. Simple. All this makes sense unless the “analyst”… covers what the Holy Ko-Ran actually says on the subject. But that would be too complicated for the people to understand, so better to rely on the hard work and honesty of someone like Cathy Young.
Face_The_Truth says
Not everyone of military age joins the armed-services in any country on earth.
Only 5-10% do.
Similarly, not every Muslim joins armed Islamic Jihad at a particular time; only a small fraction of Muslims do.
However, all Muslims support Islamic Jihad in one form or another as Allah’s path in order to firmly establish Islam everywhere Muslims go.
Many American Muslims danced with joy when NYC World Trade Center buildings came down on September 11, 2001.
eduardo odraude says
Some significant proportion of Muslims in non-Muslim lands do not know what Islam teaches, only what local imams say it teaches. The imams usually know what it really teaches, but also know they must lie about it so long as Islam is in the minority. Muslims pray the Qur’an in Arabic, but often don’t themselves speak Arabic, and don’t know what a verse says or what it means. The leadership knows.
Face_The_Truth says
But, even not knowing Arabic language many Muslims express joy when Muslim Jihadists murder non-believers of Allah.
BARBARA BROOKS says
I disagree that Mateen came from a “peaceful” Muslim family. His father referred to the Afghan Taliban as brothers. I imagine that a thorough investigation would lead to a money trail to Afghanistan which helps violent leaders over there. Mateen had a long history of violence since elementary school; it’s hard to believe he came from a peaceful family. Yet his father was allowed to emigrate because he had fought the Soviets without considering the extent of extremism among these fighters.
Face_The_Truth says
Islam’s founder Muhammad ibn Abd’Allah used to say, terrorism against non-believers of Allah made him victorious.
Umar Mateen followed Islam’s founder’s footsteps or, in other words, Umar Mateen practiced soon’Nah by murdering 49 homosexual Americans!
Sam says
There is a disease spreading all over the world which makes people to protect Islam at all costs. I just had a conversation with a “friend” with whom I have been discussing Islam for maybe five years. He accused me of saying that “all Muslims are evil”. I have never said that. I am from Turkey and in fact if you ask my sister she would say she is Muslim but would not have any idea about Islam. I have been saying to my “friend” that most Muslims are ignorant of their religion and do not practice it by the “book” namely Koran. Here he accuses me of something that I have never said after so many years.
How can you fight Islam if we are surrounded with all these idiot big time enablers of the “religion of peace” with no clue what Islam really is.
Robert you are the man. How can you deal with this ignorance day in day out, year after year,the same stupid illogical, dangerous protection of this cult from all walks of life with no true knowledge of Islam?
eduardo odraude says
The book Getting Through is about the art of persuasion in conversations about Islamic supremacism. We can’t just tell people facts. If we want to be effective, we have to be strategic about how we say those facts.
Face_The_Truth says
‘How can you fight Islam if we are surrounded with all these idiot big time enablers of the “religion of peace” with no clue what Islam really is.’
Actually, many of them have definite clues about what Islam really is due to so many atrocities and non-stop bloodshed Muslims commit for the sake of Islam; but, they intentionally try to mislead non-Muslims in order to protect and continue the status quo.
eduardo odraude says
She’s looking for a “middle ground” but not in the right place or the right way.
eduardo odraude says
To Cathy Young:
http://www.quotingislam.blogspot.com
Jaladhi says
It is as simple as this: Islam is the problem as it is evil, evil evil and nothing but evil!! As it was invented by a criminal, all moral codes of humanity are turned upside down in Islam. Thus evil is good and good is evil. It is for the same reason Muslims feel no remorse while murdering a human being. This is the guiding principle of Islam for last 1400 years and will remain so forever as it is the word of their criminal leader Mo/allah and can never be changed.
So enough of this nonsense that Islam is problem and then again Islam is not a problem. Islam is the big problem for humanity. Period.
Face_The_Truth says
“As it was invented by a criminal, all moral codes of humanity are turned upside down in Islam.”
Perfecto!!!
I couldn’t have said better.
eduardo odraude says
About a thousand years ago, debate among Islamic authorities led to the rejection and outlawing of independent reason, and therefore of independent conscience. One could only reason within the boundaries set up by the Qur’an and canonical hadith, and one was to act according to the example of Muhammad and not challenge that example as wrong. Muhammad’s actions, except in the rare case when the Qur’an criticized them, became the very definition of morality. If he permitted his jihadists to rape their captives, if he tortured a man to get hold of a treasure, if he ordered hundreds of captive, disarmed Jews beheaded, if he consummated marriage with a 9 year old girl, if he created a totalitarian theocratic movement in which women and non-Muslims are not equal before the law, if he said there was to be no punishment for murdering someone who criticizes Muhammad — all of that becomes the definition of morality. Muslims who grow up in America often don’t know this, it should be said, and hear that Islam believes in free speech and humane values — yes, some US Muslims are only pretending to believe that, some half-believe it and are half in denial about what they suspect Islam really is. American Imams, because Muslims are perhaps only 1% of the US population, have to be very tactful and preach tolerance, because that is precisely what Muhammad did when Muslims were weak and in the minority early in Mecca. This — and non-Muslim PC — allows a lot of Muslims born in the US to maintain self-deception or ignorance about what Islam really is.
Angemon says
This is the dog whistle to let her readers know that anti-islam = “the Right” = bad guys = whatever they say is wrong by definition.
Which is demonstrably true but, as explained above, supposed to be taken as wrong by definition.
Later she writes:
It’s not that “islam is and is not the problem” – it’s that circumstances other than islam allegedly drive muslims to become “radicalized”. Funny how, despite her assertion that any religion is what its followers make it out to be, there are religious minorities victims of unfair persecution all over the world, and yet the followers of those religions are not engaging in anything remotely close to what islamic terrorists are. It’s almost as if “Islam is uniquely, intrinsically violent and that distinctions between radical Islamism and Islam only obscure the problem“. Which, of course, can not be the case, because Miss Young already stated that was the argument presented by “the Right” (which is odd – I never thought Bill Maher to be on the Right side) and therefore is wrong by definition.
Miss Young, who do you think has it worse: a muslim in France or a Christian in Pakistan? Do you see Christian terrorism in Pakistan or do you see muslim terrorism in France? Oh, and there’s islamic terrorism in Pakistan as well – I guess the muslim-majority country named Islamic Republic of Pakistan is not treating muslims properly…
Westman says
Obviously a time is coming, first in Europe, in which the Islamist-caused problems will be so great that not only will Ms Young stop criticizing the “anti-jihadists” and claiming that devoutness and “moderation” are commonly found in the same Muslim, she will also be afraid to vacation in Europe.
I have listened to a number of Dr. Zuhdi Jasser’s speeches and have been quite impressed. However looking at how many years he has been pushing for moderates to act, it is obvious that they are not listening and his words are disappearing into the wind.
Perhaps Ms Young is frustrated that, over the same period, the anti-jihad views are gaining the most traction; Trump and Brexit offering proof of that change. Germany is also waking up to the reality of who they allowed into the country. I suspect that Ms Young will hold onto her delusion about the core of Islamic Ideology until she finds herself facing a “moderate” Jihadist.
Westman says
As of 22:16 Eastern Time, the Brexit vote is looking like leave. You can be certain that forced acceptance of unvetted “migrants”, on orders from unaccountable EU elites, was the deciding factor.
Lee says
Cathy Young’s claim: “Robert Spencer’s site, Jihad Watch, has suggested that peaceful, non-violent, even secularized Muslims are a danger to the West as long as they have not renounced Islam because they or their children may revert to its more militant forms.”
Why would raising your children to admire the worst criminal in recorded human history be a problem? Well, let’s see… I mean, if you raised your child to admire Jew-killing Hitler, I’m sure Young would think there could be a problem later on. But if you raise your child to admire the Jew-massacring, head-chopping murderer, rapist, torturer, pedophile, slave-trader, thief, and genocidal imperialist Muhammad, what on EARTH could be the problem??
Of course, Cathy Young doesn’t believe her lying b/s. She’s just another #JournalistForJihad. Until we acknowledge our political and journalist elites are at war with our civilization, we can’t win.
Our elites need to import and use Muslims as their proxies, because they don’t have the numbers to ruin our civilizations on their own, and democratic elections would be difficult for them to win if they were hands-on.
As it is, the attention (where opposition exists) is mostly on Muslims, not our elites. The elites can stay at arms-length from their Muslims, and run cover for them by smearing those opposed to terrorism, mass-rapes, and other acts of Jihad as “Islamophobes”, and just enjoy the show of our free countries disintegrating. What a power-trip.
Ren says
Of course, islam is not the problem. Cathy Young is the problem for not getting it.
Guest says
Hey, anything that guides sensible people to this site to see for themselves is surely helpful in the long run.
Davegreybeard says
The problem is that this little bitch is terminally ugly, inside and out.
I know that is a terribly politically incorrect thing to say, but every time I see her the first thing that comes to mind is halitosis.
Clearnet says
Another moonbat defending the enemy, domesticating Islam. I imagine it might make her anxiety a little less, they may not come for her, as she “says nice things about Islam” A twit with too much to say.
linnte says
Has she read the Islamic texts? I bet she has perused but not read them. How could anyone read the Qur’an and not see what’s right there in black and white? Reading and taking the words at face value, not reading anything INTO those words is easy to see how any Muslim should, not would or could, but SHOULD become a Jihadist.
I hate it that Robert Spencer needs to write to defend himself. Someday he will be recognised, like I recognize, how much he sacrifices daily for freedom and he will be a National Hero. Jesus bless you Robert!
Angemon says
She doesn’t need to read it – she was born and raised in Soviet Russia. Is it any wonder that she thinks that all religions only mean what their adherents want them to mean?
linnte says
Angemon! She was born and raised in Russia? Whoa. Your statement says a lot. Where did you learn this? Some JW folks are so good at researching information!
Angemon says
It’s on her website:
http://www.cathyyoung.net/about.html
linnte says
Respect Angemon! Thanks! Teaches me more about research! I’m “getting it” slowly but surely.
Angemon says
🙂
Budvarkabar says
A perfect poster kiddie for “Liberalism is a mental disorder”
Norger says
Islam is a dangerous creed. It is true (fortunately) that most Muslims are not violent, but I would hope that Ms. Young understands that there are dangerous and yes, violent elements to current mainstream interpretations of this faith that are not present in current mainstream interpretations of Judaism or Christianity. Death to apostates, death to blasphemers, death to adulterers, death to homosexuals…. the list goes on and on (try reading some of Mr. Spencer’s books).
Even though there are Muslims who are “moderates,” these dangerous and unstable elements of the faith will remain, unless there is a major reformation (to which there are major obstacles).. And there is always an “extremist” imam at the ready to light the fuse. I’m sorry, Ms. Young, Islam IS different, in a very dangerous way. Open your eyes.
Nathanael Hoernlé says
Would it ever, EVER, be the case that the publication that carried Cathy Young’s impotent smear would be willing to print Robert Spencer’s response?
That would be belief in right reason, wouldn’t it? That would be respect for an open forum, standing for freedom of speech, belief that, as John Milton said, “so long as truth is in the field truth will prevail”, would it not?
That would be an example of what the world has always respected, and some of it still respects, about the American way. But I guess it can’t happen.
Edward Jude says
It’s that Reason / Libertatarian instinct to pretend to be an “above it all” non-partisan by employing elements of both sides of an argument. Not surprisingly, it often leads to ridiculous illogical results and laughable opinions.
Turbo Diesel says
I’m honestly surprised to see Cathy Young receive such criticism.
Young has been a dissenter of the Leftist narrative about campus “rape culture.”
She was on MSNBC “Melissa Harris-Perry” to challenge the veracity of a rape accusation at Columbia University. She also contributed essays on campus sexual assault to the educational reform website [Minding the Campus].
Understand, I’ve always respected Robert Spencer and Cathy Young for the same reason: they give information that defies the Left narrative on Islam and campus rape, respectively.
So it’s striking to me to see him at odds with her.
Tony46 says
Islam is the problem.
C.Young is the problem.
Also Washington and Brussels….to name a few.
..