• Parroting indeed!

        Abrahms’s ‘research’ contains no references to the Islamic texts that motivate the terrorists. He seems to know almost nothing about the jihads of the previous 14 centuries that are the models for the present-day jihadists. He is making models based on speculation and guess work, rather than reading Islamic history and foundational Islamic source texts. When one reads the obscenely cruel behaviors of Turkish troops and their various surrogates, one is struck by how similar they are to the behaviors of ISIS. Coincidence?

        • There are several videos on Youtube that give some history of the Ottoman Empire.

        • The Ottoman Empire–the last Caliphate–was a real horror show, with the Janissary system and other oppressions.

  1. I think that the major problem stems from the fact that most people refuse to acknowledge that any religion could be inherently evil.

    • Ted: I am going to give the benefit of the doubt that you are not a troll. That said I am no fan of any religion, and I was born and raised a muslim. But when was the last time you heard of a militant catholic, a militant jew, a militant Hindu and so on… that strapped a bomb and killed innocent people? M

      • Ted is not a troll, Miriam. I don’t think he is being anti-religious here per se at all–he just notes, correctly, that since most people have generally positive experiences with religion they cannot really conceive of one that is just evil.

        OT: how is your son the veteran doing?

        • In that case, it would have been better worded with “a” instead of “any” – “that a religion” versus “that any religion”.

        • To make life easier to understand, people tend to adopt a single cause to a problem. The majority seem to blame Islam, when it seems that it is not the sole problem, just the most obvious. Many people can’t conceive that in this day, people could commit acts of terror in the name of religion. Two issues there: it only takes a few to commit those acts, with many more just holding the cloaks; ad for the huge majority of Muslims, they are living about 1400 years ago, not in this day at all, but a far simpler time when good people did what they were told.

          But don’t forget that a lot of influential people in the West support these acts, either because they really can’t conceive of the mentality behind them, or because they see a gain for their own agendas, or because they can’t see the connection between what they advocate and what the final results will be.

          Life is not simple anymore. Perhaps the best answer, though, is to make it simpler. Banning Islam in non-Islamic countries might be a good start.

        • I agree that many people have a desire to return to simpler times where they are told what to do and who actually do have a “fear of freedom”. In addition, there are many people who will attack people who have a different point of view. With Islam, this natural human tendency to destroy your enemy is intensified until the Muslim will kill the Atheist or the Christian because they do not believe in Allah or accept Muhammad as his prophet.

          In Science you don’t get this kind of violent hostility to ideas. Scientist #1 may publish a paper and then Scientist #2 may respond with something like: “….although your experimental data is irrefutable, your interpretation of that data is incorrect. The correct interpretation is……..for the following reasons….” Scientists usually don’t kill each other because they differ in philosophy.

          In religion, people do kill each other because of differences in philosophy. Christians did this in the past and Muslims do it in the present. This is unfortunate, but it is true. History speaks for itself. That is, until the Islamic State destroys all traces of previous civilizations and re-writes that history.

          Banning Islam in non-Islamic countries sounds like a great idea; however, I believe that it would be in violation of the First Amendment – and the First Amendment must be vigorously supported. Perhaps one’s efforts could better be spent in attempting to ban Sharia Law – as Sharia Law seriously violates basic human rights.

      • The point that I am trying to make is that the thinking error that I see in too many people is: All religions are good, Islam is a religion, therefore Islam in good. Then this is frequently followed by: Islam is a good religion, if you say anything bad about Islam, then you are anti-Muslim, a racist, and you should be stoned to death and if that is not possible, have all of your posts deleted from the Internet.

        Also there have been many religions that were truly bad. I am not a student of History, but as far as Catholics and Protestants blowing things up, I do recall a little problem we had in Northern Ireland some time ago.

        Sorry for my lack of knowledge in too many areas, but what is a troll??? (live under a bridge??)

        • These Catholics and Protestants were not acting on the tenets of Christianity, nor on the model of Jesus, Ted.

          But Islamic Jihad terrorists are very much obeying the Qur’an and following the model of the violent “Prophet”. That is why there are so many of them.

          As for trolls, this is a term for an internet poster who deliberately posts to sow discord on the internet, whose comments are intentionally provocative.

          I also use the term as do others regarding Jihad Watch specifically in reference to Muslim apologists, Taqiyya artists, and those who threaten Anti-Jihadists.

          I have of course never considered you a troll here, Ted. Although someone drawing false moral equivalence between Islam and other religions–as miriam mistakenly suspected–would quality.

    • I think you’re right, Ted. Most religions really are forces for good; but of course this need not be so.

      The religion of the Aztecs involved human sacrifice; that of Moloch involved sacrificing babies.

      But today, most religions are positive, or at the very least neutral–the *only* major faith that is intrinsically malignant is Islam–something most people do not want to accept. When I was a kid I also assumed that Islam was pretty much like any other faith.

      It was only later that I began to notice how troubling the actions of so many Muslims were, with plane hijackings and suicide bombing in Israel. But it was only after 9/11 that I read the Qur’an and really began to study Islam and found just how poisonous a creed it truly is.

      That an “expert” in 2016 does not know this is inexcusable–but, as Robert Spencer notes, this is actually the norm right now.

    • Ted and his *twisted* view–again:

      “I think that the major problem stems from the fact that most people refuse to acknowledge that any religion could be inherently evil.”

      Making such a general sweeping statement, like this, is of course preposterous and unfair.

      Ted, you ought to know better than to state something so wrongheaded, as this.

      Stick to the facts, if you can.

      • Champ, I try to get a feel for how other people are thinking with occasional success. Why do you think that my post is twisted, preposterous, unfair, and departing from the facts. If my facts are not correct, then what are the correct facts?

        • Due to derogatory remarks that you’ve made toward Christianity, that’s how …and not that long ago, Ted. Are you forgetting?

        • Ok Champ. Now I do see how you are thinking. My current post is twisted, preposterous, unfair, departing from the facts and wrongheaded – because I have made bad comments about Christianity in the past. Wow! Mr. Spock would not be impressed with your logic.

        • Thank you, Ted. I knew that your hatred for Christians would eventually rear it’s ugly head–again. Wow! …that didn’t take much prodding. Clown.

        • Champ. When I say nothing and simply repeat your own words back to you – you respond with: “Ted. I knew that your hatred for Christians would eventually rear it’s ugly head–again. Wow! …that didn’t take much prodding. Clown.” Fascinating! Even Mr. Spock would be perplexed.

        • Graven, Ted has made some *very* derogatory remarks about Christianity in the recent past, so of course his above comment could be seen as negative towards Christianity …

          Please read it again through this lens:

          “I think that the major problem stems from the fact that most people refuse to acknowledge that any religion could be inherently evil.”

          We may simply have to agree to disagree on this.

        • You’re right, Champ. I had not thought Ted Tyler’s post above was necessarily anti-religious, but he *has* said some nasty things about Christianity elsewhere, which I had not recalled.

          On the “Rutgers displays ‘artwork’ of Christ crucified on a dartboard, Christians worldwide riot — no, wait…” thread, he wrote: “as an Atheist, I consider Christianity to be like a sniffy nose. It is a virus, it is annoying…”. He said that the Bible shows God is evil.

          He also said that if Ted Cruz won the presidency (he was still in the race at the time) that he would impose a theocracy and bar all Atheists from holding public office. Ridiculous stuff.

        • Graven, You have many good points. And yes, after thinking more about some of the stuff I have said, I probably am wrong!
          Thanks for the definition of troll. Yes, I never do trolling on this site because I can get into enough trouble without even trying. People know that I am an Atheist and a big fan on Christopher Hitchens and many of them will try to misinterpret whatever I say and give it an anti-Christian or anti-religion spin when in fact none was intended.
          I will try to suppress my negative feelings for religion because that is actually a minor issue that gets us off track. The real problem is Islam. How does Christopher feel about Islam?
          Some time ago there was this “Jesus on the Dartboard” “Art”. I could see that this was offensive to Christians as many voiced great displeasure. I thought that I would add my Atheist contribution from the peanut gallery. So I said something like “the “Art” was in poor taste and offensive to Art itself”. I thought that my post would be a humorous addition to the posts that were already there. Not so. I got a lot of flak. And it was not my intent to offend anyone.
          I will no longer be engaging in flak interactions. Not because I have fear of flacking – but simply because we do not have time for it. Too much time has been wasted here already. Now we must get back to slowing Islamization.

        • Graven, thank you for providing some of Ted’s exact remarks against Christianity–good job!

        • Good to hear, Ted …

          Take aim at the real enemy: islam.

          All the best to you and yours.

        • Ted Tyler wrote:

          People know that I am an Atheist and a big fan on Christopher Hitchens and many of them will try to misinterpret whatever I say and give it an anti-Christian or anti-religion spin when in fact none was intended.

          There are, in fact, many Atheists who regularly post here, many of whom are widely respected–including Hugh Fitzgerald himself. Your idea that people here are apt to jump on Atheists without reason here is mistaken.


          I will try to suppress my negative feelings for religion because that is actually a minor issue that gets us off track.

          I assure you I am not trying to suppress anyone’s comments here. I had simply forgotten your previous negative comments on the subject, and wanted to let Champ know that she was correct and I had been mistaken.


          The real problem is Islam.

          I could not agree more!


          How does Christopher feel about Islam?

          Actually, with just a few exceptions, Christopher Hitchens was *very* savvy about the threat of Islam. I intend to include him in my “Heroes Against Jihad” series (along with fellow Atheist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in fact).

          For what its worth, I also agree that “Dartboard Jesus” was just bad art, as well as being offensive to Christians. Its tripe like this that sometimes makes it embarrassing to say I am an artist.


          Too much time has been wasted here already. Now we must get back to slowing Islamization.

          Agreed! Islam is a threat to Christians and Atheists and every other Infidel. Be well.

        • Thanks Graven. When I get feedback from you, I have the feeling that you are trying to correct my errors, give me good information, and set me on the right path.

        • Well, maybe not all the way anti-religion. Just a little condescending, as evidenced by his view that those of us who take the Christian religion seriously are yearnig for simpler times when everyone knew his place and bowed to authority. Typical Marxist drivel that says the only real christian position vis-a-vis authority is abject subjection. I think I’m partly with Champ here.

          It’s the militant secularist ethos that is allying itself with militant Islam these days in the conceit that it is showing itself “broad-” or “open-minded”.

    • Name one.

      No, only islam is intrinsically evil, murderous. If a group, within any bona fide religion, were to manifest (execute) equivalent God Damned activity, they would be soundly rebuked, with force and authority.
      Islam is a cult, built around the personality of a supposed person called mo. ALL adherent sects of islam are tarred with that same perfidious geopolitical core.

      • “Only Islam is intrinsically evil, murderous.”

        Exactly. Only Islam has Jihad. Only Islam mandates hatred of others (Jews and Christians) and to subjugate and kill them (Jihad).

    • Let me interpret Ted’s point which seems to be that Post-moderns assume without evidence that they only can truly understand religions and they assume that all religions are basically the same and therefore equally absurd or equally benign. This is called Radical Universalism. Radical Universalism is a unique claim that says only RU believers have the true perception of religions, therefore it refutes itself, because their belief is not the same as the belief of all religions.

      In fact, all religions differ widely on many points.

      Islam’s source texts have much more text devoted to politics than to religion. Most of the Islamic texts are about how to copy, imitate and follow Mohammed and how to hunt, enslave, capture, humiliate and extort money from dirty kafirs who are hunted, enslaved, captured, etc., because they disbelieve Mohammed.

      The core doctrine of Islam is to make warfare against the disbelievers because they are disbelievers, rather than because they have committed actual crimes. This is called ‘bigotry’. Muslims call it ‘jihad’.

  2. We’ve been looking for so many years for the group that will greet the infidel “coalition” liberators with open arms. Based on Abrahms’ praise, Could that group be Al-Nusra(al-Qaeda in Syria)? Somehow those open arms look like AK-47 rifles.

    How incredibly dishonest is Abrahms’ statement, that “..a tiny slice of the world’s population is lured to Islamic State..”, without specifying that the “tiny slice” are ALL Muslims. The Catholics, Protestants,Amish, Mormons, JW’s, Hindis, and even the neo-Nazis won’t join ISIS.

    It seems that Abrahms is not only complicit in the infusing of students with unmarketable skills, he misdirects a group of influential policy advisors away from realizing the true motive of the enemy, through omissions and apologetics, while advancing stealth jihad.

    • I don’t know, but even if not — just look at the soft, pudgy maggot: he needs to be thrown into boot camp and benefit from the tender ministrations of a hardass drill instructor for six months!

  3. Sabbatai Zevi himself was pretty darn eccentric– but, certainly, there are many who like him would facilely convert to Islam under the least pressure.

    • Yes, this is the same person. See Gravenimage’s comment below at 5:15 p.m.

  4. Abrahm’s research method is to firmly affix the foregone conclusion that his employer ordered and then cherry-pick the data until usable, while hiding contradictions.

    Abrahm’s is a ‘designer’ who tidies the data for scheming politicians. A real scholar would read and master Islam’s source texts. I doubt Abraahms knows the difference between fard ayn and fard kifayah.

    • A standard modern academic. Disinterested research is a thing of the past. Post modernism rules – where every fact is opinion and all opinions form “narratives”. The narratives hide the real power.
      Real power is implied and deadly.
      Quite similar to the Arab tribe. Be useful to the Sheikh or be banished (you and your extended family). It an amazing convergence of fundamental Islam, the modern academia, politics and bureaucracy. These people are preparing the way. Mashallah.

      • Yes–this is “perfect storm” of malice and idiocy. I still believe we will eventually be able to defend against Islam; but dhimmi tools like Max Abrams make it a lot more difficult.

        • Abrahms is a willing, mercenary, renegade dhimmi. How can he not be outed? His papers do not discuss jihad, which is the source of the ‘terrorism’ he talks about.

          The purpose of his writing appears to be to whitewash jihad out of the picture. He is a photoshop artist. He hides the ideology of the evilest people on the planet.

  5. CFR’s Max Abrahms claims Syrian jihad groups growing because they’re moderate

    Where to start with this idiocy? As noted, pious Muslims are drawn to ISIS not specifically because it is “mean”, but because that meanness is so Islamic.

    And the idea that Ahrar al-Sham and the Nusra Front are “moderate”–and are becoming more so–could not be more grimly laughable. Nusra is an arm of Al Qaida. There aim is, like ISIS, an Islamic state ruled by brutal Shari’ah law. They have targeted Druze and Alawite civilians.

    Ahrar al-Sham, which also has strong links to Al Qaida, also seeks a pure Islamic state. They condemn any kind of democracy.

    A Sharia Court Judge with the group, Mohamed Najeeb Bannan, stated “The legal reference is the Islamic Sharia. The cases are different, from robberies to drug use, to moral crimes. It’s our duty to look at any crime that comes to us. . . After the regime has fallen, we believe that the Muslim majority in Syria will ask for an Islamic state. Of course, it’s very important to point out that some say the Islamic Sharia will cut off people’s hands and heads, but it only applies to criminals. And to start off by killing, crucifying etc. That is not correct at all.” In response to being asked what the difference between Ahrar al-Sham and ISIS’s version of sharia would be, he said “One of their mistakes is before the regime has fallen, and before they’ve established what in Sharia is called Tamkeen [having a stable state], they started applying Sharia, thinking God gave them permission to control the land and establish a Caliphate…”.

    In other words, the only issue Ahrar al-Sham has with ISIS is that they think they jumped the gun–*not* that they think ISIS is too mean.

    And here we see that Max Abrams will not back up his twaddle:

    “‘Terrorism theorist’ Max Abrahms challenges Robert Spencer to debate, then loses nerve and cool”

    • Thanks for this fine research…Abrahms would avoid his many erroneous conclusions if he had you to teach him ‘how to research’.

      ‘Moderate’? Is there ‘moderate’ beheading? or handchopping? or stoning? or ethnic cleansing? or slavery? or polygamy? Is there a ‘moderate’ caliphate? Is there a ‘moderate’ manual of Sharia law? Or are all the manuals of Sharia similarly draconian?

      Abrahms appears not to have studied the foundational texts of Islam, and yet, preposterously, presents himself as an Islamic expert.

      • Thanks for your kind words, Mortimer.

        Yews, Abrams is a fool–and a dangerous one, lulling his readers into a false sense of security.

  6. Questions for Abrahms:

    1) Is ISIS ‘supremacist’?
    2) Is Ahrar al-Sham ‘supremacist’?
    3) Is Nusra Front ‘supremacist’?
    4) What does a ‘supremacist’ want?

  7. Caesar:
    Let me have men about me that are fat,
    Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights.
    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look,
    He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.

    Julius Caesar Act 1, scene 2, 190–195

    “Abrahms retails the kind of terrorism analysis that dominates the mainstream these days …”
    This sleek-headed fellow, this enabler, should not be taken to lightly. He has the ear of the king.

    • Oops, Caesar line numbers may differ, depending on text used. Also, …not to be taken too lightly.
      Also, I in no way wish to suggest that this RS (JW) article considers Abrahms trivial – he looks too content to be dismissed.

  8. Look at the following research paper of Abrahms:

    It never mentions the word ‘Koran’, ‘hadith’ or ‘Sira’, and yet, those are the texts Muslims quote most. Abrahms claims that hitting civilian targets is not effective…based on what? That is not what the hadiths say. Mohammed often attacked civilian targets and merely for the purposes of plunder! Economic sabotage is part of Islam…and it is ‘effective’ as far as Muslims are concerned.

    Abrahms has never understood that Muslims believe ‘honor’ is as real as gold or diamonds. If you steal someone’s ‘honor’, you have stolen real wealth and increased the wealth of Islam thereby.

    Abrahms does not understand the enemy. He tries to explain the enemy in his own invalid terms, rather in the enemies terms. I do not believe he understands jihad, Islam, al Walaa wal Baraa, ghira, fard ayn or many other basic Islamic concepts. He is looking at Islam entirely as a patronizing outsider.

    • In 2006 he wrote “polling data from Muslim countries suggest that the terrorism backlash is already under way”. Well he sure got that one right! How many times do these guys have to get it wrong before they loose their jobs. It seems never. He may have to rewrite that paper as “Terrorism” seems to be working quite well. He of course conveniently left out the successful terrorism over history – Bolsheviks, ( that worked) and my favorite the Assassins. That certainly worked until the Mongols arrived.
      But hey while spoil a good heading for a paper that ensures work for you as an ‘expert’ for the next ten years.

  9. Max Abrahms is pro Assad and attacked Clinton numerous times. Some basic fact checking is in order. He said Ahrar and co were using moderate methods compared to ISIS and not that they themselves were moderate.

    • Mazo posted:

      Max Abrahms is pro Assad and attacked Clinton numerous times.

      Well, so what? Is that supposed to win him any favours here? This is the nth time you try to play that card here “oh, you don’t like hat this individual is saying? Well, he’s pro-this and against that. TAKE THAT!!!”. When will you realize that’s not going to work?

  10. He was from the city of my ancestors…
    I read Scholem’s works on him, pretty interesting.

  11. Abrahms is still an intellectual coward for backing out of the debate with Dr. Spencer.
    He knew Dr. Spencer would clear the floor with him.

    • Robert Spencer would expose him to ridicule. Once he realized that his only face-saving recourse was to use ad hominems since Abrahms doesn’t have a mastery of the jihad doctrine, kafir doctrine or Islamic supremacism doctrine.

      Robert Spencer (MA) is not a ‘doctor’, though his many books and won debates put him in the ranks of the best scholars on Islam. Spencer has successfully proved that jihad-terrorism is normative Islam taught by all schools of Islam at their highest levels and not an aberration nor an exaggeration.

      Abrahms has made a career out of hiding the connections between the jihad terrorists, Islam’s top teaching authorities and the House of Saud.

Translate »

Please help spread the truth about jihad

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

Sign Up for Our Daily Digest