• 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

New York Times: Only “fringe interpretations of Islam” justify violence, “mainstream majority view is peaceful”

Jun 17, 2016 2:32 pm By Robert Spencer

Max Fisher, now of the New York Times, here spends 1,764 words purportedly to explain what the phrase “radical Islam” means and why it is controversial, and devotes nary a single one of them to exploring the Qur’an, or the teachings and example of Muhammad, or the doctrines of the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence in order to elucidate the phrase. Instead, we get obfuscation from the likes of the puerile and silly Qatar-funded establishment counterterror analyst Will McCants, who claims that the phrase itself is meaningless: “Every bit of that phrase is analytically unhelpful…Is this the wine-drinking Islam of the poets? The court Islam of the caliph? What kind of Islam are you even talking about?”

Well, Will, you may think me “crazy pants” for saying so, but how about the Islam of the Qur’an and Sunnah? Max Fisher intones that the words “radical Islam,” “absent political context, could be read as trying to distinguish fringe interpretations of Islam, including justifications for violence, from the mainstream majority view, which is peaceful.” Fisher doesn’t apparently see any need to substantiate that claim, and for good reason: he can’t. The authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib), make it very clear that the “mainstream majority view” of Islam is not peaceful, but sanctions violence:

Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, unless one believes the claims of the Islamic State, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).

Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world….The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.

All this makes it clear that Fisher is flatly wrong that only “fringe interpretations of Islam” include justifications for violence, while “the mainstream majority view” is “peaceful.” But neither Fisher, nor the Times, deem it necessary to consult Islam’s authoritative interpreters to determine whether it calls for violence or not. In fact, violence in Islamic teaching is not “radical,” but mainstream. For Fisher and McCants and other establishment analysts, that idea is “crazy pants,” the facts be damned.

Max Fisher

“When a Phrase Takes On New Meaning: ‘Radical Islam,’ Explained,” by Max Fisher, New York Times, June 16, 2016:

It was nearly 18 months ago, shortly after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, when a reporter for National Public Radio, Mara Liasson, observed at a White House press briefing that President Obama and his aides had “bent over backwards” to avoid using the phrase “radical Islam.” The press secretary, Josh Earnest, said this was because “these terrorists are individuals who would like to cloak themselves in the veil of a particular religion,” opening a debate over the phrase that has taken on new rancor amid the massacre in Orlando.

“In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words ‘Radical Islam,’ ” Donald J. Trump said in a statement within hours of when Omar Mateen killed 49 people at a gay nightclub and invoked the Islamic State in a 911 call. “For that reason alone, he should step down.”

The next day, Mr. Obama called the focus on phrasing “a political distraction.”

“What exactly would using this label accomplish?” the president asked. “Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.”

What does “radical Islam” even mean and why has it become so controversial? Is this argument just semantics, or does it go deeper?
What does the phrase mean?

Let’s start with the words. “Islam” is a 1,500-year-old religion whose 1.6 billion followers worldwide observe a spectrum of customs and traditions. “Radical” can mean something very different or against tradition, or be defined as extreme views, practices and policies.

The words, absent political context, could be read as trying to distinguish fringe interpretations of Islam, including justifications for violence, from the mainstream majority view, which is peaceful. But that context — including who shouts the phrase and who studiously avoids uttering it — has ladened it with pernicious meaning in particular quarters.

Shadi Hamid, a scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said that before the controversy began, he did not use the phrase “radical Islam” much, but neither did he find it overly objectionable. After two years of politicization, though, Mr. Hamid and other analysts say the phrase has worrisome connotations, potentially maligning all Muslims or Islam itself.

“Why would you feel such a need to use this particular combination of words, when the vast majority of us agree that this is terrorism and that it should be stopped or countered?” he asked. “These terms are being used as dog whistles.”

Will McCants, another Brookings scholar, told The Washington Post in December 2015 that “every bit of that phrase is analytically unhelpful” because of its lack of specificity. “Is this the wine-drinking Islam of the poets?” he asked. “The court Islam of the caliph? What kind of Islam are you even talking about?”

Republicans who invoke “radical Islam” seem to be trying to telegraph certain arguments about Muslims, political correctness, and the United States’ failure to stop the march of extremist groups across the Middle East. At the same time, Democrats who reject it are also making a political statement, one touching on Islamophobia and inclusiveness….

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: Featured, Jihad doctrine, journalistic bias, Useful idiots, willful ignorance Tagged With: Max Fisher, New York Times, Will McCants


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Tommy says

    Jun 17, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    Did moo-HAM-id have sex with a child and does not the Koran talk about killing gays?…etc…

  2. RichardL says

    Jun 17, 2016 at 2:46 pm

    it is always the same rubbish: conflating islam with muslims. Until the counter-jihad movement has been able to get rid of this, there will be no progress in our fight against islam.

    Of course one cannot call 1.6 bn people evil. However, we can call an ideology evil: Nazism, fascism, Marxism-Leninism are historical examples. And of course there are evil religions: the Mayan religion was evil.

    This is what we need to stress. Then people stop making the same idiotic points the NYT, WaPo and all the other media outlets always make. Even people Hannity don’t get it.

  3. a fool says

    Jun 17, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    No violence could ever be justified under any circumstance! Especially when one claims one is for a Religion that offers PEACE! It makes one wondering, what would it be like when that same religion is commanded to WAR? What sort of people would want to join that religion of Filth and Murder? So far, we have not see anything good happened base on that Religion’s claim, but we have seeing raping young boys and girl, killing women, killing anyone who is with is with a different Faith! Who gives them the Right? “He who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword!” If all the religions believe in the same practices, this Religion could never took off ground during its inception in the 7th century by a lustful hateful evil man!

  4. Michael Copeland says

    Jun 17, 2016 at 2:59 pm

    Memo to Max Fisher:
    Islam is not defined by “the vast majority of muslims”.
    Nor is it influenced or altered by it.
    Islam is defined by its source texts ONLY.

    • Len Vaness says

      Jun 17, 2016 at 5:32 pm

      Thank you Mr Copeland…that is insightful!

    • Carolyne says

      Jun 18, 2016 at 10:36 am

      And as Erdogan said, “There is no moderate Islam. There is no radical Islam. There is only Islam.” He is a Caliphatist. I think I coined a new word but the goal of Islam is world-wide domination–all Islam. There is no radical Islam. There is just Islam. Got it from the camel’s mouth.

    • hmmm says

      Jun 18, 2016 at 4:06 pm

      excellent point, but as this video,( :30) demonstrates by a show of hands at the request of an imam that the majority of devout muslims indeed believe allah’s laws are superior to man’s”
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q81OydAw3k

    • خَليفة says

      Jun 18, 2016 at 4:46 pm

      And so we should not use “radical Islamic terrorism”
      BUT RATHER JUST “Islamic terrorism”

  5. Jaladhi says

    Jun 17, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    Looks like the liars are out in full force to save and absolve Islam and Muslims from their criminal genocidal murders of non-Muslims! How long are they going to lie – until their own neck is on line under the swords of Muslims!

    • Carolyne says

      Jun 18, 2016 at 10:37 am

      “But I thought Islam was peaceful!” Whack!

  6. El Cid says

    Jun 17, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    Hah!

    Donald Trump has started the discussion.

    Only an idiot doesn’t understand “Radical Islamic Terrorism”.

    The Muslims get it.

    • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

      Jun 17, 2016 at 4:45 pm

      Only an idiot doesn’t understand “Radical Islamic Terrorism”.

      Then that makes me an idiot. Cuz to me there is no such thing possible, Islam was radical out of the box 1,400 yrs ago, and hasn’t changed since. The only sense in which it can be defined as radical is in comparison to civilized societies and belief systems. Radical Islam Terrorism is a diversion, it imbibes the delusion that there is a Islam that is in any way normal. Normative Islam is violent.

      • American Pragmatism says

        Jun 18, 2016 at 9:45 am

        You are right. We are at war with islamists. We need to drop “radical islam” and call them islamists. It’s exactly what the threat is. Obviously these terrorists aren’t radical, they are following Islamic teaching and spreading sharia. They are islamists.

        Also I agree that we need to do the opposite of what has been done, where start looking at the Islam as evil and stop looking at the followers, even the terrorists, as evil because they have been gravely misguided. Unless we combat the ideology of islam directly we can’t win.

        • Carolyne says

          Jun 18, 2016 at 10:39 am

          What we need to call them is “Muslims.”

  7. common sense says

    Jun 17, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    Anyone who believes Fisher wants to. Clearly such a person has no understanding of social inequality in the Middle east and WHY it is the way it is over there.
    Such a person does not understand Jihadism in social customs, politics, economics, migration and war. There is no religion to be found there unless your religion is subjugation of others and intolerance.

    Such a person has no clue who moe-ham-ed really was and what steps he wants Muslims to take in carrying out the spread of Islam.

    Such a person has a one switch mind and is a liability to their fellow citizens by their own ignorance. The minute you see over 3000 people die in one shot you should really want to know why and not be told what to think by a representative of the religion itself or a sycophant POTUS.

    Such a person does not understand bias or taqqiya or the victimization of Muslims.

    Peaceful Muslims who don’t fall in with the American code of ethics and laws are here to imprint Sharia, breed and take up space while the wolves of Islam do the killing and tax our systems of government and finance. Everyone of those Muslim political groups is a wolf in sheep’s clothing just like alligator brained Max Fisher.

    Clearly the people who believe the lie of Islam have no idea what it’s like to be in a war even though we are exposed to it with growing ferocity and frequency.

  8. common sense says

    Jun 17, 2016 at 3:53 pm

    Correction on “victimization of Muslims” should read “SELF victimizing Muslims”.

  9. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    Jun 17, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    If only fringe interpretations of Islam justify violence, then what’s the center that makes the fringe? It sure ain’t the Holy Ko-Ran or the Hah-Deaths, one of which commands violence and other that records it as a positive act. So by its logic, the fringe elements are the ones who point to the undeniable truth of Islam.

  10. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    Jun 17, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    The paper of Walter Duranty. And it also employed Edward Said, who was every bit as misleading.

  11. Idania says

    Jun 17, 2016 at 6:08 pm

    Just look at history. Islam’s for 1400 years has tried to conquest the rest of the world. They are supremacists. The Otoman Empire, Muslims, killed four million people until 1923. If we don’t learn from the past, this one may be repeated. It does not have to do whith hate, islamophobia or any ill feeling. It has to do with common sense, self preservation, and survival.

    • SpiritOf1683 says

      Jun 19, 2016 at 3:36 am

      The Ottoman Empire passed into history in 1923. It didn’t stop the genocides. Obviously what has happened since 623 let alone 1923 has been swept under the carpet out of political correctness. Anyone quoting Churchill now gets accused of hate speech, and if they dared to use John Quincy Adams or John Wesley’s quotes…

  12. Joe Pimpernel says

    Jun 17, 2016 at 6:32 pm

    The New York Slimes demands that we accept men who identify as women, but they refuse to accept terrorists who identify as Mooslim.

  13. Jack Holan says

    Jun 17, 2016 at 9:20 pm

    Robert,
    Do you think any of these ‘experts’ have read the Quran, Hadith, and sunnah? Just like the so called analyst. I doubt any of them hunger for knowledge to sharpen their craft.

  14. ECAW says

    Jun 18, 2016 at 4:14 am

    Very good! 🙂

  15. ECAW says

    Jun 18, 2016 at 4:28 am

    It is helpful to become acquainted with the fashionable, vacuous idea of non-essentialism to understand where people like Aslan, McCants and Fisher are coming from:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-essentialism

    Related to Islam essentialists, like most of us here, think that there is such a thing as Islam and it is to be found in the canonical texts whereas non-essentialists think that Islam is whatever Muslims think it is.

  16. Angemon says

    Jun 18, 2016 at 6:40 am

    “Radical” can mean something very different or against tradition, or be defined as extreme views, practices and policies.

    It can also mean “of or relating to the origin”, which would be the correct meaning in the context of “radical islam”.

  17. Mubarak says

    Jun 18, 2016 at 7:59 am

    Every time we use expressions like “Radical Islam”, “Muslim extremist” or “radicalized Muslim” we pay homage to Islam as an inherently violent religion.
    That is why p. Obama don’t like these words.

    Sam Harris is unto this correlation when he says, that the crazier a Jain becomes in the observance of his religion the less we have to fear him. If Islam was a religion of peace a radicalized Muslim would be a profoundly peaceful Muslim, but it is not so.

    It is the fundamentals of Islam and the memes of Mo that inform terrorism and compel its practitioners.

  18. Carolyne says

    Jun 18, 2016 at 10:42 am

    You’re right. The mackerel screamed, “No, No, No.” That would make a catchy song.

  19. Lioness says

    Jun 18, 2016 at 12:27 pm

    And more than 35,000 times the word “kill” in the koran in different variations, such as: slaughter, stab, strike at the neck, death to… Not to mention: subjugate, enslave, capture… All peaceful loving stuff, you know.

    • a fool says

      Jun 18, 2016 at 3:08 pm

      All are shameful things and Mortal Sins in our Christian Faith and the Buddhist Faith, so is the Tao and, the Hindu…. this must be a Satanic religion, all are for the flesh, nothing is for the salvation of one’s own soul, thus, never mind about the souls of others!

  20. Jay Boo says

    Jun 18, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    These same leftist readers loved Reza’s fiction ZEALOT about Jesus.
    When Reza Aslan says Jesus was a homicidal maniac.
    Idiot Obama and the left gushed with glee.

  21. Jay Boo says

    Jun 18, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    New York Times Reviews of Zealot

    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/in-defense-of-reza-aslan/?_r=0

    http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2013/08/06/arguing-over-jesus/

    —————————————————-

    New York Times praised Piss Christ,
    condemned Muhammad movie

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/09/new-york-times-praised-piss-christ-condemned-muhammad-movie

  22. Jay Boo says

    Jun 18, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    If the New York Times supports “Piss Christ” display and if Muslim truly consider Jesus one of their prophets why did they not protest against the New York Times and hold a defend the prophets seminar.

    Could Muslims all be a bunch of dirty two-faced liars?

  23. Jim Loyd says

    Jun 18, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    How can there be various modern interpretations of Islam if:
    – if a person does not follow the Qur’an, what does it mean for him/her to identify as being a Muslim? Does he/she claim to be a follower of Islam?
    – the Qur’an advocates many values that do not meld successfully with American and Judeo-Christian values, such as killing “Infidels” and failing to assimilate;
    – Moslems are authorized by their faith to misrepresent their values;
    – the Qur’an is perfect and not subject to interpretation;
    – non-experts cannot be assured that a translation of the Qur’an is correct; and,
    – Moslems must abide by the Qur’an.

    How do we protect ourselves from this kind of religion?

  24. Norger says

    Jun 19, 2016 at 12:10 am

    The following is the last paragraph in Andrew McCarthy’s book, “Willful Blindness” about his prosecution of the “Blind Sheikh,” Abdel Rahman:

    “Islam is like fire. For the majority of Muslims who would reject, reform or tacitly ignore its combustible elements, it is a force for good: a source of comfort, a guide to dignity and the life honorably lived. But for countless others–not a fringe, but tens of millions over whom the majority is bereft of influence–it is a conflagration waiting to happen. We are the realm it would engulf. And there is always a Blind Sheikh ready to light the fuse. We can open our eyes and see it. Or not.”

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

  • Mojdeh on Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration
  • Henry Mansfield on Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration
  • Crusades Were Right on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Naildriver on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • Crusades Were Right on Canadian Mental Health Association studies Muslim women’s mental health due to ‘discrimination’ and ‘hate crimes’

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.