• 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

How Google’s search engines use faked results to manipulate people’s views of jihad

Sep 4, 2016 12:32 pm By Robert Spencer

This post by Jihad Watch tech expert Marc offers extraordinary insight into how Google skews its presentation of information in order to manipulate people into accepting half-truths and falsehoods that serve the Left’s agenda. He explains how Google deliberately manipulates its results when one searches for the word “jihad” — and doubtless this is just one of countless examples of how Google advances the Leftist/Islamic supremacist line while burying the truth.

Googlesuit

“How Google’s Search Engines use faked results for social engineering,” FreeSpeechDefense.net, September 4, 2016:

So how does it work, I’ll use one example, a simple Google search for the word “Jihad”, but first I’d like to give you some background on how Google search is understood and intended to work. My knowledge comes from a variety of sources, but is in line with the well known public authority on the subject of Search Engine Optimisation (SEO), an employee and till recently the public voice of Google and its search engine, Matt Cutts, he now works for the Pentagon (yeh, I know). Google has published an “overview” of how it all works, but that’s a lot to get through.

So in a nutshell, Google is looking for the freshest, most authoritative, easiest to display (big screen and mobile) content to serve its search engine users, it crawls them, caching (grabbing) content, looking at the speed of download, the textual content, counting words to find the relevance, checking what it looks like on different sized devices. It also looks at what other sites link to it, both number of and “quality” of those links. When I say quality, it wants to see how authoritative the linking in sites are. They also have a number of algorithms in place that block the listing of “spammy” sites, but spam would not be relevant here. Additionally they also have recently claimed to boost sites using HTTPS to promote security and privacy (fox, henhouse – lol).

There are a few exceptions which I don’t think anyone could have issue with, a search for a single word might bring up a dictionary or encyclopedia, but more often, they add Wikipedia to the list of results, especially if it’s a busy wiki page with constant updates.

There is a way to beat these results and get to the top, and that’s by paying for the Google Adwords service, these ads at the top are clearly identified with a little “Ad” button, that is not the case here.

I amgoogle-search-of-jihad not in the US, so used a VPN to proxy my research from the US, as searches from other locations provide different results.

So search the word “jihad”, and you will see at the top of a list of 32 million results a list as this:

  1. A dictionary definition
  2. Wikipedia
  3. A link to a page of the “Islamic Supreme Council”
  4. A link to “Jihad Watch”

So we know how the dictionary definition and Wikipedia got there, but how did the “Islamic Supreme Council” and “Jihad Watch” get 3rd and 4th place? JihadWatch.org I know well, I do the server and site management, following SEO best practice, here are the major pertinent reasons for its high listing in such a competitive search, 32 million is huge in this game:

  • jihadwatch.or-mobileRobert Spencer, an accomplished author is a prolific blogger, adding a minimum of 10 posts of current jihad related news stories of the day.
  • It’s part of the domain name, that always gives a massive boot (searching “free speech defense”, my tiny, low volume blog always comes top).
  • Doing a jihad site:jihadwatch.org shows that the word “jihad” is mentioned on the site 35,000 times, proving its main focus of discussion is “jihad”.
  • A search for just jihadwatch.org shows that it is mentioned on 631,000 other sites pages (linking in), proving it is very authoritative and often referenced.
  • Jihadwatch.org is currently the 10,488th most popular website in the US, this fluctuates, but not much.
  • The site uses HTTPS and a responsive (mobile friendly) theme, so it looks great on any device.

So how about the “Islamic Supreme Council”, I’d never heard of them. I asked a few people who have studied Islam, they hadn’t either, so lets look at the comparative statistics:

  • islamicsupremecouncil.org-mobileThe site is run by Sheik Kabbani, a Naqshbandi Sufi. It has additional posts added a couple of times a year, the latest news panel lists an event in 1996.
  • It has “Islamic” in the domain name, understandable that Google maybe has confused the two words. /sarc off
  • Doing a jihad site:islamicsupremecouncil.org shows that the word “jihad” is mentioned on the site 123 times, whereas searching the word “Sufi” brings up over 200 results proving it’s main focus of discussion is not “jihad”.
  • A search for just islamicsupremecouncil.org shows that it is mentioned on 79,000 other sites pages (linking in), showing it is as 1/10th as popular/authoritative as jihadwatch.org.
  • This is confirmed with an Alexa popularity search, showing it is the 307,832th most popular site in the US.
  • The site does not use HTTPS, and it is very mobile unfriendly, using technology from a previous millennium (I’m not kidding, it’s using web standards from 1999 if you look at the source files).

So what’s up? How does the site get this boost, if you search the word Sufi, the “Islamic Supreme Council” isn’t even listed in the top 10 pages. Funny thing about the meaning of the word “Jihad”, to the fast majority of Muslims they themselves know of two meanings, the Google dictionary definition at the top of the results is correct:

  1. (among Muslims) a war or struggle against unbelievers.
  2. the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin.

Often differentiated as the greater and lesser Jihad, but Sunni and Shia Muslims, who make up the vast majority of Muslims, understand when the word Jihad is used alone they mean the violent kind, world conquering imposing of Sharia law, blowing stuff up and cutting heads of infidels, and they accept the lesser Jihad as a false construct, but that’s another debate, you can read more here at wikiislam.

But what is unique about Sufis, a tiny minority of Muslims, if in fact they are Muslims, as the vast majority of Muslims do not accept Sufis as such, and many Sufis themselves do not identify with being Muslim, is that they are unique in only having this peaceful, lesser Jihad, being somewhat pacifists, ironically often violently targeted for their beliefs in Muslim majority countries.

So in conclusion, how are you being socially engineered by Google? Anyone doing a search for Jihad will think they are seeing an opposing, authoritative view of Jihad Watch’s, but the “Islamic Supreme Council” is of no authority, it’s poor in every way. Nonetheless, the Googler will read all about all this peaceful unrepresentative Jihad, trusting Google will live by their moto “Don’t be evil”. Former Google CEO and current executive chairman Eric Schmidt once said, “it was a dumb rule merely because the word ‘evil’ isn’t really defined, and Google doesn’t quite know what evil is.”

So how about another site which might be more of an authority on Jihad in the US, cair.com (Council on American-Islamic Relations) is constantly being updated, is far more popular at 146,590th place, actually probably even more so, as it has a vast network of sites. A search for jihad site:cair.com gives 342 results, and is mentioned and linked to a whopping 60 million times, it’s mobile friendly and has HTTPS enabled, and it’s not even on the top 10 pages of results for a search on Jihad. Odd, that except their own political agenda is for Americans to believe the Sufi understanding of Jihad is a common Muslim understanding, rather than their own aggressive one, with proven ties between CAIR, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Some would say “a war or struggle against unbelievers” Jihad was CAIR’s main purpose, advertising that fact doesn’t help their agenda, much better American Googlers read the Sufi version for them. I think I have described in detail how this subtle manipulation works.

It’s not a secret. Facebook has been at it also. The connections with the Obama administration and now Hillary Clinton are well documented. My enemy’s enemy is not my necessarily my friend, but here is what Julian Assange has to say on the collusion between the US administration and Google.

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, Internet jihad, Leftist/Islamic Alliance Tagged With: Google


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Allan says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    Be a little wary of Android, too. It’s a prized piece of the global Google gill net.

    • Mark Swan says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 11:04 pm

      Marc, thank You for this article.

      • marc says

        Sep 4, 2016 at 11:13 pm

        @Allan. Android, i am a user myself, as an OS device, doesn’t worry me too much, it is open source, so subject to peer review, people using the default install as chrome with google as the only available search engine does. I think though I will be getting my first iphone soon, those who know me well will not let me hear the end of it. But that is purely for physical security reasons.

        • billybob says

          Sep 5, 2016 at 12:28 am

          I run Firefox on my Android phone along side the default Google browser. It works pretty good on my phone, too. Firefox uses DuckDuckGo I believe.

          Since there’s a Google search button right there on your home screen, one way to get to know another search service better is to make it the default option in Chrome. Typing in the Omnibox will automatically query one of these other services instead of Google. Here’s how to make the switch…

          Shifting away from Google

          Naturally Google is the default in Chrome. First go to Settings > Search Engine and then you’ll see five different choices…

          http://www.greenbot.com/article/3041300/android/how-to-change-the-default-search-engine-in-chrome-for-android.html

        • Allan says

          Sep 5, 2016 at 5:46 pm

          What about the kernel? It’s a modified version of the Linux kernel (which makes it into a non-Linux fork.) Is that, too, open source?

          I think that we should be a little wary of anything Google given its executives’ Democratic slant, their insatiable greed, and the known collaboration of Google, EMC, etc. with our increasingly gangsterlike government. Furthermore, how realistic is it really to expect that prudent, politically informed people will be able to understand an OS with more than 10^5 lines of code? or more than 10^6 lines?? Much of the geekocracy is leftist, so I’m not much soothed by phrases such as “Open Source”.

          One more thing: please recommend instructions for obtaining root on my Android device. I realize that such directions can be found on-line, but I prefer not to just pick a set at random. (Fyi, it’s a smartphone, so called, but I don’t use it for telephony).

  2. Kay says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    It is a big concern. If people try at all to educate themselves, they are easily misled, lulled into complacency or thrown back into a “controversy” they can’t think their way out of.

  3. jihad3tracker says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 12:59 pm

    A MAJOR CONTRIBUTION BY — AS ROBERT ACCURATELY DESCRIBES HIM — TECH EXPERT MARC. And, by the way, a very nice guy who has, in the last year or so, helpfully & graciously answered several questions for NON-tech savvy Old Me.

    This would be an excellent item to send to your Republican national and state senators and representatives, who are already suspicious of major Google leftist multicultural bias. BUT WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE LABOR DAY WEEKEND.

    Also, probably better to email it to A DISTRICT OFFICE in your state, NOT WASHINGTON DC. Precede that with a phone call to let the chief-of-staff in the office know the subject line.

  4. Kay says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 1:08 pm

    Try a search for “facism.”

    Along with the Wikipedia and dictionary entries, Google’s first page supplies 3 articles denouncing Trump. Save a review of a book by Umberto Eco (which a late night of work has left me too tired for understanding) that is all the first page offers.

    Censorship by Facebook and Twitter, Google’s shenanigans and (are they bought?) press — it leaves Trump with a steep mountain to overcome, in spite of o’s treason and h’s crimes.

    • Allan says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 1:32 pm

      Ah, The Mystery of Fascism.

      Search for that phrase at Bing or Google. You should see at the top of the results a link to a fascinating essay by David Ramsay Steele, a former socialist.

    • marc says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 9:07 pm

      @Kay ohhhh, that is an interesting search, biased more than most, it would be hard to quantify as I have done here though.

  5. Angemon says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    So in conclusion, how are you being socially engineered by google? anyone doing a search for Jihad, will think they are seeing an opposing, authoritative view of JihadWatch’s, but the “Islamic Supreme Council” is of no authority, it’s poor in every way

    And unfortunately, not everyone will bother to check the source.

  6. Guest says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    Google has also shown options except Hillary Clinton’s health. I feel that should be noted.

    • Kay says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 2:31 pm

      Here are some photos and videos that got through:
      http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/08/10-prominent-doctors-question-hillarys-health/

      Of course Google also supplies the articles claiming it’s merely political conspiracy, the “balanced” view.

    • marc says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 9:10 pm

      @Guest I dont see it, Gooogle seem to be playing fair here from what I see https://www.google.com/search?q=Hillary%20Clinton%E2%80%99s%20health&rct=j

      • Guest says

        Sep 4, 2016 at 10:59 pm

        Precisely my point

        • marc says

          Sep 4, 2016 at 11:06 pm

          Some they manipulate, some they don’t, as mentioned in other comments, a search of the word “fascism” also gives unexpected results. Donald Trump before mention of Hitler or Mussolini?
          Please read up on how Google claims to work in their own words, then revisit my my accusation.

  7. Don McKellar says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    There is no coincidence that the same forces pushing the Clinton ticket and working overtime to smear and distort everything out of Trump’s mouth, are the globalist internet mega-corporations and sites like Google, Facebook, et al. Their business model is built around a weak United States and a strong “global village” with America a dutiful citizen which tows the line. They could care less about America’s middle class or working class as being of any more value than somebody in India or China or Iran. In fact, they do everything they can to make sure that those growing markets for them are better served and take precedence of Americans (or people in other free countries who already have seen all the growth and usership of those internet corporations’ sites). And that translates directly to running interference and social engineering for Islam. the Islamic countries are prime growth areas for these internet giants. They want to make sure that the shadowy governments of these countries don’t shut out Google or Facebook and the rest! They need to keep their business models rolling and, as far as they’re concerned, human rights and freedom mean shit next to the bottom line. And if they can wave the phoney flag of leftist fantasy to shield themselves/try and excuse their actions — they’re happy to do it. That’s the ugly reality.

    • KnowThyEnemy says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 3:26 pm

      Yes, what you explained is the reason why social-media companies behave the way they do. To them, growth and expansion is most important. Muslims are the fastest growing (breeding) people in the world and the media companies are aware of this. That is why they pander to Muslims.

    • marc says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 9:17 pm

      @Don McKellar, I don’s see or understand that bigger picture of why they do it, I’m not a big fan of Trump myself, but from what I see, I am convinced that Google and Facebook, as well as Microsoft are supporting Clinton and harming Trump in an intentional way, Being British I saw and understood the big pictures of the same players unsuccessfully attempting to damage the Britexit campaign.

  8. Mirren10 says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 2:02 pm

    Oh dear, I don’t understand any of that. But of the underlying premise, I have no doubt whatsoever. Thanks, marc.

    • Kay says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 2:39 pm

      It just means ‘say a lie often enough and it’s the truth’ and even if it isn’t, if enough people believe it, you can still get your way.

      There used to be more accountability when books actually had to get published. But you can read anything on the web and Google is making sure it’s easier to read some things than others. They don’t even have to entirely suppress information, just make it so that it takes more effort to get to by mixing it with a lot of what they want you to see. Most of us don’t have the time or energy to keep digging.

      It’s a little like stores putting junk food near the checkout; you could still find broccoli or brussel sprouts but you’d have to put effort both into finding them and ignoring the conveniently placed junk.

      • Charli Main says

        Sep 4, 2016 at 4:06 pm

        @ Kay

        In the words of the one of the greatest masters of the ” truthful lie”

        —–in the size of the lie, there is always contained a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a greater lis than to a small one———
        Adolf Hitler
        Mein Kamph

      • marc says

        Sep 4, 2016 at 9:24 pm

        ‘say a lie often enough and it’s the truth’ yep, they absolutely leverage that fascist method, and no one really understands whats going on. subtle doses consistently prescribed, the masses (80% of search engine users) will belive anything.

  9. Kay says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    Please somebody remind me of this thing O intends to do with the web–
    turn more control over to an international board or something?
    And is Congress involved?
    Is there anything we can do about it? I’m afraid it could be even worse than what we have now.

    • marc says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 9:28 pm

      Thankfully, a large number of my peers, while not agreeing with me in many ways, are not going to let O or the UN take control of the internet in the way O or the UN would like. The EFF https://www.eff.org/ are very active on that front.

      • Mark Swan says

        Sep 4, 2016 at 11:41 pm

        The world needs to know about this, how ominous this truly is.

        • marc says

          Sep 4, 2016 at 11:45 pm

          @Mark Swan, yep agree, it’s potentially very serious, I am involved in EFF who despite having a large number of anarchists and leftists involved, wont give up on this, but that is not the subject or concern or JihadWatch. I do urge you to get involved with EFF.

        • Mark Swan says

          Sep 5, 2016 at 2:07 am

          They seem to be a good organization, defending civil liberties, in the digital world,
          I will look into them and this area of organizations to learn more.

      • LB says

        Sep 5, 2016 at 5:35 am

        Pardon my lack of expertise, but isn’t that the same / similar thing which SOPA was designed for – censuring the internet? And it failed horribly. What’s to stop it from failing again?

  10. davej says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 2:50 pm

    Jihad: the private spiritual struggle of all Muslims to overcome sin, where sin is defined as the existence of any unbelievers. So sin is obviously cannot be the rape, murder or enslavement of non-Muslims, that’s just part of the “struggle”.

  11. KnowThyEnemy says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 2:51 pm

    Good job marc for exposing google’s devious tricks. My own experience has been that when it comes to having biases and suppressing Free Speech, Facebook is number 1. For some reason, it is always Islam they protect. If you post anything against Islam or Muslims, the try to shut you up. There have been so many people, even ex-Muslims, whose posts have been deleted and/or their accounts locked over posts that we at JW would thing mildly anti-Islamic.

    I was locked out of my FB account after I tried to warn people regarding “syrian refugees”! If you post anything against “syrian refugees”, FB will come after your account too. Guaranteed.

    Twitter is significantly better than FB though they too do things that shows evidence of strong pro-Left biases.

    Google, actually has been the best. Its CEO publicly supported Muslims against Donald Trump, however I can only recall one instance in the last 5 years where Google deleted a comment I posted on YouTube (YouTube is owned by Google). I also once posted a challenge against Quran on my Google+ page, and it was never censored by G+ even though it attracted quite a bit of Muslim traffic (See this). So from personal experience, I cannot complain.

    One thing that I quite like about Googe+ is that it has a feature called Communities. So someone can start a G+ community (on any issue/topic), and people with G+ accounts can become members of that community(ies). I think we SHOULD take advantage of this G+ feature. It is good to reward social-media (by using their services) who do not crack down on people’s freedom of expression.

    • marc says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 9:33 pm

      Facebook and twitter are more honest about it, they ban you, they say you are banned, while they give lame excuses, it’s there in the open, this is far more insidious. This is where they are positively discriminating, yes Jihad Watch should be number one, but the bigger issue is what it’s being replaced by.
      Avoiding FB and twitter bans is actually quite easy, if you PM me (link on the side bar), I can advise you how.

      • KnowThyEnemy says

        Sep 4, 2016 at 11:32 pm

        I am not going to re-open my Facebook account as I end up spending too much time on it, and also because I have not had much success waking up my ‘Friends’ and relatives despite years of trying. My relatives like to see and read only the nice stuff, and help/support only those who are oppressed and suffering. And who is better at showing their sufferings than the Muslims?

        If you show them the ugly truth of Islam, they refuse to see it. To them, anything that makes them uncomfortable is false and wrong, and any posts against the “oppressed and suffering” is propaganda by bigots, hatemongers, and other bad people!

        But I am sure there are plenty of readers who can get their points across to their FB ‘Friends’. I highly recommend that they PM marc and take his advice on how to avoid Facebook and Twitter bans.

  12. ECAW says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    This Islamic Supreme Council comes up second on Startpage too. Are they and Google connected?

    • Martin says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 4:14 pm

      Startpage searches are powered by Google.

      • ECAW says

        Sep 5, 2016 at 3:00 am

        Thanks.

    • marc says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 9:38 pm

      Startpage, yep they use google search engine, but they obfuscate your searches, so giving you some privacy. duckduckgo.com is a slightly better option, giving you the privacy, and they introduce some of their own algorithms on top of the google results.

      • ECAW says

        Sep 5, 2016 at 3:02 am

        Thanks.

  13. mike says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    Wael Ghonim is the dirty link he joined Google Middle East and North Africa as their Regional Marketing Manager in 2008 based at Google Egypt.[citation needed] In January 2010, Wael became Head of Marketing of Google Middle East and North Africa based at Google’s UAE office in Dubai Internet City in Dubai.

  14. john says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 3:51 pm

    In the UK the BBC (and recently BBC bitsize) come above JihadWatch and after the islam misleading council page.
    Then comes news articles about Jihad.
    Then comes JihadWatch

    I have been certain Google are artificially posting results above JihadWatch for the following reasons.

    1) The news article section often has a page from JihadWatch and I never remember seeing one from the BBC. This tells me more people are getting Jihad news from JihadWatch than from the BBC. So logically one would expect JihadWatch to rank above the BBC.

    2) After weeks of going to JihadWatch by typing Jihad in the browser (without resetting the session) and selecting JihadWatch it finally moves rank above the BBC. IT NEVER goes above the islam misleading page mentioned in the article.

    3) So I think clicks to JihadWatch have moved it up Google’s ranking but the moment I use a different browser session or another computer on the same internet connection, the result for JihadWatch has gone back down below the BBC and news.

    So, I conclude, Google does not want JihadWatch to be in the position it’s algorithms would normally rank it.

    The day Google refute my conclusion by releasing the way the rankings are worked out is the same day I should expect bovine creatures to be seen cruising at high altitude.

    • marc says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 9:42 pm

      BBC has more credibility than the “Islamic Supreme Council” on the subject, i can’t argue that the BBC would have a high listing on such a search, the artificial listing I see in the US is easy for me to prove, and I really needed to prove this to my peers in a technical way as I have done.

      • john says

        Sep 5, 2016 at 4:44 am

        Indeed it does.

        However the “Islamic Supreme Council” entry is above the BBC.

        The BBC tells us the the Greater Jihad is struggling internally to forgive and overcome greed and such like nonsense. It then says the the “holy war” Jihad is defensive and not to convert or conquer infidels!!!!

        see for yourself
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/rs/war/islamrev2.shtml
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/jihad_1.shtml

        I can argue that the BBC has a high ranking on the search because it says basically the same lies as the islamic council, namely: Internal Struggle, Defense, often misunderstood.

        “often misunderstood” makes me laugh the most: Someone sees the warfare and death inspired by mohammed in the present (or history) and assumes Holy War is just that – a war. They want more understanding and are told that equating jihad to war is a misunderstanding.
        Misunderstanding is a correct observation.

  15. mortimer says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    We are being manipulated by Western elites who are cultural Marxists and who think they can understand Islam according to the ‘victim theory’ of cultural Marxism. They cannot.

    Islam explains itself in the Islamic source texts and Sharia law manuals. Without reading the source texts and Sharia, Western elites are applying ‘victim theory’ to Muslims, who are in fact ‘perpetrators’.

  16. Northern Virginiastan says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 4:37 pm

    I searched for Islamofauxbia on Google and among my top results was CAIR’s islamophobia.org

  17. RodSerling says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 5:02 pm

    It’s probably safer to say that Sufis are perceived as non-violent, though that perception is incorrect. For example, Sufis are most often Sunnis, and follow violent jihad and sharia. They can follow particular schools of jurisprudence, e.g., the revered al-Ghazali was a Shafi’i jurist. My initial foray into the polling data indicates that self-described Sufis are as supportive of harsh sharia, setting up a caliphate, etc., as are other Muslims–if not more so on average. Maybe all that extra “inner jihad”–which in any case involves hating disbelief and disbelievers–makes them even more dangerous?

    Not sure if Google is really trying to manipulate the search results to promote misleading apologetics. (I wouldn’t be surprised if they were, but I’m not sure Marc’s comparison proves it). When I search “jihad” using Duck Duck Go, I still get lots of obvious b.s. apologetics in the first five positions. And the ridiculous “Islamic Supreme Council” site is listed sixth, ahead of jihadwatch which is seventh. (Update: I checked again a moment later and their positions were reversed).

    • marc says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 9:43 pm

      Duck Duck Go base their results on googles adding their own advertising, but they do add some of their own algorithms to results. Buyer beware.

      • Mark Swan says

        Sep 5, 2016 at 12:09 am

        This does not need to be this way; our own laws should be re-written to say all information
        that is not absolute fact must be labeled as such, so that using a search engine you can select “Just the Facts” on a topic and get close enough to what you are searching for.

        A site dedicated to this, with the ability to verify, is desperately needed.

        Marc—there are many ways to raise and maintain funding for such a useful and needed site.

        • ECAW says

          Sep 5, 2016 at 4:12 am

          Mark – Who decides what is a fact?

          You don’t have to get very far from “grass is green and the sky is blue” before you run into trouble.

        • Mark Swan says

          Sep 5, 2016 at 9:31 am

          There is no getting around what you have just said, this is the world we live in allright.

          Just because something is needed, doesn’t mean, that need will be met, that is a “fact”.

      • RodSerling says

        Sep 5, 2016 at 2:29 am

        I searched “unbiased search engines,” and one of them was “Mojeek,” in which I then searched “jihad.” Top result was Jihadwatch, followed by Sheikyermami. The first few pages at least are filled mostly with anti-Islam sites. The wikipedia entry does not appear until the bottom of the third page. It looks like Mojeek is not down-grading politically incorrect content.

        • Noel says

          Sep 5, 2016 at 10:29 pm

          Thanks Rod. I’ve this moment tried Mojeek.co.uk(rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?). I search Jihad, and JW comes first – but even better I searched Facism and Donald Trump is nowhere to be seen. This will be my default search engine.
          “Mojeek’s technology maintains the only British built crawler based search engine with it’s own index over a billion web pages. This means our results are unique to us, they contain no other engine’s results, and offer a completely alternative view of the web.”

  18. nic says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    The issue of refresh rate (e.g. the rate at which new items are added) is only relevant if the website is deemed to be relevant to a current event. A typical example would be Olympic medal scores during the Olympics.

    Unless a website content is deemed relevant to a current “trending” issue, then update rate is NOT relevant.

    I would suggest the reason that this “supreme council” website scores so well in Google for the term “jiahd” is that – among a myriad of other factors – it has been around for a long while, and uses an American DNS registrar, and an American hosting company. Accordingly, if you do a Google search from an American network, then Google will give it a higher priority.

    It also scores highly (first page) in Yahoo, Bing, Hotbot.. mind you.. that’s no real guide.. they all use Google’s database ANYWAY.

    As for the question of cair.com; it doesn’t highlight the term ‘jihad’ in the same way as the IslamicSupremeCouncil does. It’s not down to how many times the term appears; it is down to the context it appears in, and the style of HTML markers that it appears in, relating to the balance of the page text.

    People… REALLY…. do you think that the Google staff have the time – or even the ability – to modify the Google algorithm on a “case-by-case” basis to highlight specific causes or search terms, against a backdrop of millions of searches every minute, and trillions of database entries ?

    Possible ? Yes. But its more likely that aliens are involved, using the CIA to beam microwave messages into your head etc etc etc.

    Buy tinfoil.

    The fight against Islam is important to our survival. This kind of technically illiterate paranoia hinders that struggle. Sorry Marc, but your analysis doesn’t hold water.

    • marc says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 10:27 pm

      I used a US VPN and incognito intentionally, the results are far clearer when you do that, and the manipulation more obvious.
      Yes, I’m certain that google are manipulating the numbers, have you followed Matt Cutts’s work, the “supreme council” site does not tick any boxes to be number one on anything but a search on it’s name, there isn’t even metadata there in the head tags. Are you really ignoring all that and sticking to the age of the article, if you are you really should check the age of Jihadwatch.
      And cair, it should be listed, it has multiple articles on Jihad, it doesn’t even come up in the first 10 pages for the search term, or do they not represent Muslims in the US as they claim.
      Yes google staff obviously do have that, they don’t do it with all search terms obviously, but some have been given special attention. as previously mentioned, try doing a search on the word fascism, the first non-dictionary result in the US is Slates “Is Donald Trump a fascist” and in the UK and Canada it is a “new statesman” article on Britexit, but maybe you think that’s correct also?

    • Kay says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 11:31 pm

      I knew someone who used to have a job manipulating Google hits. He was hired by a private person, a physician I believe, who had a negative Google article about him. So this guy was hired to repeatedly click on positive articles so that the negative one would get buried.
      I’m sure there are more powerful and efficient ways to do something similar–given enough money.

  19. Green Infidel says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    Come to think of it – the whole reason I stumble onto a whole new world of knowledge at Jihadwatch and, following that, other counter-jihad websites, and educated myself in so much new information I never knew existed, was because, one day in 2003 or 4, I typed in the words “Jihad Watch” into Google… so I wouldn’t write them off completely 🙂 at the end of the day, the truth can become viral – whether or not Google want it to be. Since that day, I shared my knowledge, especially with one friend who, back then, was a far-leftist but who has since become a Trump-supporting counterjihadi, and have spread the knowledge also to many more middle-of-the road people. Many of whom have since also gone on to express counterjihadi opinions. Not once, as far as I can recall, has anyone ever been able to rebutt what I told them about Islam – in person or online.
    Also, if one reads Islam-related comments sections of major media like the Guardian, one will notice it’s almost totally dominated by counterjihadis. I suspect that they, just like me, have ultimately been heavily been influenced by what they read on websites such as this. So, the key is to educate, spread around links, mention things that are impossible to refute – and knowledge will spread… whether Google like it or not 🙂

  20. Wellington says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 7:32 pm

    Instructive how mendacity (e.g., Google) gets a pass time and time again while truth has to struggle to present itself (e.g., Robert Spencer on Islam)———a commentary on our age even though modern communications should, yes SHOULD, aid truth, i.e., Spencer, over lying, i.e., Google.

    But such modern communications overwhelmingly don’t (e.g., Google, the BBC, the CBC, America’s major networks of course, The New York Times, et al.), now do they?

    Instructive again how such mendacity (e.g., Google) serves as an ally of Islam and the Left. And who of sense would ever want to place into the collective hands of Islam and the Left the future of mankind? Maybe an entity that begins with a “G.” Whatever.

    My God, we live in such dumb times, not because of technology, which is more refined than ever before, but because of massive ignorance, a dearth of common sense, an overall ethical imbecility, a proliferation of those twin idiocies, multiculturalism and political correctness, et al. A lot of “et al.” here. Mucho.

  21. billybob says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 9:25 pm

    You give us a single example to condemn Google with? Get a life! It is not in Google’s interest to distort its search results. It has enough trouble with all the commercial interests constantly screaming bias. From my experience, Google really does try to live up to the old motto, “Don’t be evil”. I have been watching them like a hawk, along with Microsoft for years. You can expect search result manipulation from Microsoft, and Facebook doing tricks, but not Google.

    You will find search results constantly varying, as you noted yourself, by what country you are in, and whether you yourself are logged in, or even what your URL is. I just now did a search, logged in to my Google account, just to see what I would get. At first, I had to try twice to get past Google’s auto-complete that wanted to take me directly to Jihad Watch. Finally, with just “Jihad”, I got Wikipedia first, and the Islamic Supreme council of America next, with their page about Jihad.

    http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9

    Gee – forgive Google for thinking they may be an authority on the topic, but it seems to me, if you can’t trust them, who can you trust? (Unless you happen to be one of Jihad Watchers, in which case, we don’t trust them!) In any case, their definition isn’t too far off, until you get most of the way down the page and you start getting some BS…

    <b<WHAT JIHAD IS NOT?

    Jihad is not a violent concept.

    Jihad is not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as “people of the book” who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.

    Military action in the name of Islam has not been common in the history of Islam. Scholars says most calls for violent jihad are not sanctioned by Islam.

    Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications.

    …but how would you expect Google to understand the nuances here that make me label this “BS”?

    btw: Third one the list was Jihad Watch, followed by something on National Geographic news “What Does “Jihad” Really Mean to Muslims?”.

    • marc says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 10:33 pm

      I’ll refer you to my comment here:
      https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/09/how-googles-search-engines-use-faked-results-to-manipulate-peoples-views-of-jihad/comment-page-1#comment-1515659
      I belive for the reasons I have given that Google are manipulating results, if you have not read Matt Cutts’s work, you may not understand that is counter to their normal operations, it sticks out like a sore thumb to anyone working in SEO, the reason I can only suggest, but the fact is, they are doing it.

      • billybob says

        Sep 4, 2016 at 11:11 pm

        I liked the comment you responded to. I don’t doubt you sincerely believe what you are saying. I just take a more scientific view of the world myself. If I wanted to do research on search engine bias, I think I would wanted to monitor at least a few hundreds terms over time. More than that, I think I would like to have at least a Master’s Degree, if not a Phd., to develop a proper methodology and come to conclusions that would stand up to peer review. That is how such research is done. Conclusions in science simply aren’t based on anecdotal evidence.

        I do understand, however, that we don’t base all our opinions on scientific evidence. We all draw a line at some point and go by what our gut is telling us.

        • marc says

          Sep 4, 2016 at 11:35 pm

          @billybob of course I know exactly who you are, i would have expected that you would have seen enough to have sided me here.
          For the record, there is no PHD or masters in SEO. I have run this past a senior crypto analyst with the military, a senior officer at the CIA and an RCMP officer in the cybercrimes for their input prior to posting, they all get the same gut feeling having read this and recommend I post. This is not a scientific paper.

        • Mark Swan says

          Sep 5, 2016 at 1:02 am

          I have read Marc’s article above and carefully, if You have some sort of ax to grind,
          it can’t be with Marc.

      • billybob says

        Sep 4, 2016 at 11:26 pm

        Marc, I do have one more response to your comment. That is, if there was some kind of plot against this site to knock it down a peg, why would it even show up in the top 100 search results? I tell you why I might think that…

        Just how many Islamic organizations do you suppose would agree with Google putting Jihad Watch in 3rd place??? I think if asked, every last single one of them would say that Jihad Watch is just spreading bigoted, racists, hateful, Islamophobic propaganda and should not appear in the search results, period! That’s exactly what they would say – don’t you agree??? And furthermore, I have no doubt that by now, one or more of said Islamic organizations has complained loudly and clearly about Jihad Watch getting such prominent billing.

        • marc says

          Sep 4, 2016 at 11:38 pm

          You did not understand what I said, i said that they had without good reason been pushed to the top, not that Jihadwatch had been pushed down (they have, but only due to another site being “bumped”, i thought that was very clear.

        • billybob says

          Sep 4, 2016 at 11:59 pm

          I did read your reply carefully, but I admit, I did not respond as carefully, in such a way that would reassure you that I had read it carefully.

          Just wanted to take this final opportunity to to give the conclusion I omitted just above, where I speak of how an Islamic organizations would perceive Jihad Watch getting such a high ranking. The concluding line I would like to add is this… that a truly left-leaning politically correct search engine would simply not give such prominence to Jihad Watch, no matter how well it is constructed in terms of SEO. It would justify pushing it way down in ranking because “it is spreading Islamophobia”.

          For example, imagine you were searching for some straight-forward, fundamental information on the Jewish faith, and saw one of these anti-semitic Jewish conspiracy theory sites, of which there are an abundance, taking a higher ranking than a Jewish site with accurate information…

          Not going to happen. Why? Because it would be inaccurate information. Yet Jihad Watch gets 3rd place, and it is as clearly anti-Islam as one of these Jewish conspiracy sites is anti-Jewish. Why? I hope, because it is perceived to be accurate, because in fact it is accurate. That’s the difference. So it seems this algorithm of Google’s is working pretty good, going out on a limb even, risking the ire of Islamic jihadists even, to bring the best results it can.

          Anyhow, I must agree to disagree with you. As I said further up, I don’t form an opinion based on limited, anecdotal information. I run my own website, and I am well aware of SEO, getting endless spam offering to put my site at the top of the rankings. SEO is often just voodoo.

        • marc says

          Sep 5, 2016 at 12:43 am

          @billybob
          “Yet Jihad Watch gets 3rd place” you are not searching from the US if you see it third place. There are very few identifiable manipulations of single words, if you can find a benign single word with a high search number return such as this with similar unexpected results, let me know.

        • Kelly says

          Sep 5, 2016 at 1:09 am

          “Bigot”
          ???

    • t. says

      Sep 4, 2016 at 10:56 pm

      billybob, what is your real name?

      Do you really think that the people working at, visiting and commenting on this site are that stupid to believe the crap you posted above?

      The truth is there for any one who is genuinely seeking it. Just grow up, be a real mature man or woman and embrace the truth which will set you free!

      • billybob says

        Sep 4, 2016 at 11:15 pm

        Of course billybob is my real name. You think I would use it if it wasn’t? The nerve of some people!

        • billybob says

          Sep 4, 2016 at 11:16 pm

          Sorry – that was supposed to be humorous, because I think humour is the only suitable response to your comment.

      • marc says

        Sep 4, 2016 at 11:40 pm

        @t. yep, I know who he is, and that really is his name.
        Stupid, I know he’s not that, he’s actually a fairly skilled guy, and he really should be helping me here, that worries me.

        • billybob says

          Sep 5, 2016 at 12:03 am

          Marc – I’m a Google fan! …and an old Microsoft hater from back in the day before Slashdot got overwhelmed by the Microsofties.

        • t. says

          Sep 5, 2016 at 1:11 pm

          I’d like to seize the moment and thank you for the very illuminating article above, your work at this site and your professional and timely responses to my personal inquiries whenever I needed help regarding any technical problems I encountered visiting this site.

    • More Ham Ed says

      Sep 6, 2016 at 2:51 am

      92% of all google employees vote FAR LEFT – and yet you need “examples” – sounds more like you need to go back to school and learn to read.

  22. Hoss says

    Sep 4, 2016 at 10:18 pm

    Google certainly DOES manipulate search results in an attempt to steer public opinion and perception. All you have to do to verify this is look at their autofill omissions or inclusions. For example, type in “Muslims are” in Google search. The autofill comes up with “not terrorists.” Logically the negative stating of a phrase would not occur first and the positive stating would. In this case “Muslims are terrorists” is not presented at all as an autofill suggestion. Obviously the phrase “Muslims are terrorists” would be far more popular than the contrary as well.

    • ECAW says

      Sep 5, 2016 at 4:19 am

      Just tried it.

      “Muslims are not terrorists” came up first as you say.

      “Muslims are the true feminists” came up second with no other offerings.

      Sounds pretty convincing to me.

      • t. says

        Sep 5, 2016 at 1:04 pm

        Thanks Hoss for bringing up this point which clearly indicates how Google is heavily involved in social engineering.

        It more than proves the validity of Marc’s article above; it sealed the deal for me!

        • Mark Swan says

          Sep 5, 2016 at 5:53 pm

          Assange highlighted the alarming control that Google has over its users’ data and the information received and kept by the search engine giant.

          “Google controls 80 percent of the smartphone market through its control of Android and if you control the device itself – that people use to read – then anything that they connect to through that device you have control over as well.”

          Outside of the native OS found on Apple’s iPhone, Google’s monopoly on remaining smartphone market may be behind why companies such as Samsung are considering dropping Android in favour of their own OS.

          It’s not hard to imagine how any form of manipulation of certain search returns and political polls may greatly benefit a presidential candidate or push a political agenda. If Assange is correct in his assertion that links Google to the Clinton campaign, then the search engine could have a major impact on the Presidential race. Assange also pointed out that Google has had no trouble working with the Obama administration.

          “Google has gotten into bed with the Obama administration in a very significant way,” stated Assange. “It is the company that visits the White House more than any other – averaged once per week in the last 4 years.”

          http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/

        • t. says

          Sep 5, 2016 at 10:11 pm

          Mark Swan, thanks a lot for this information!

        • Mark Swan says

          Sep 5, 2016 at 11:25 pm

          You are welcome t. — here is a useful sight to look things-up.

          http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/search_engine.html

    • Jay Boo says

      Sep 5, 2016 at 4:26 am

      “Hillary is”

      Likely Results:

      (Not a traitorous, lying, old, witch-hag who belongs in prison)

  23. scherado says

    Sep 5, 2016 at 12:54 am

    My boycott of that search engine began in 2007 and continues today.

  24. UNCLE VLADDI says

    Sep 5, 2016 at 2:39 am

    Willing criminal accessories both before and after the fact by dint of covering up for and enabling any and all crimes (mass murder included) perpetrated by “muslims!”

  25. Cecilia Ellis says

    Sep 5, 2016 at 4:09 am

    Marc, thank you for this excellent overview of the “Don’t do evil” Google process that seeks to dominate search and internet influence globally, in short, the social engineering of the masses. Your example, clearly a snapshot teaching tool, indeed translates sophisticated SEO techniques into a plaintext, understandable message: “Google Is not what it seems,” just as Julian Assange wrote,

    “Whether it is being just a company or “more than just a company,” Google’s geopolitical aspirations are firmly enmeshed within the foreign-policy agenda of the world’s largest superpower. As Google’s search and internet service monopoly grows, and as it enlarges its industrial surveillance cone to cover the majority of the world’s population, rapidly dominating the mobile phone market and racing to extend internet access in the global south, Google is steadily becoming the internet for many people. Its influence on the choices and behavior of the totality of individual human beings translates to real power to influence the course of history.”

    https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

    The example that you provided, at the very least, reflects an unusual abnormality within the Google empire that suggests either algorithmic or manual manipulation. Google admits to both, though the latter allegedly is for use in specific scenarios.

    Therefore, thank you for your work and your efforts to educate the technically-challenged reader who just wants to know the bottom line. ?

  26. Henry jones says

    Sep 5, 2016 at 10:57 am

    I would hardly call Marc a tech expert, seeing how he said an A/V was blocking JW, which it wasnt, and that he doesn’t understand the difference between a Web host and it’s customers, calling me by my clients name, “Ryan”…

    However, he’s better than Hugh, who said the 9/11 attacks happened in October.. I still don’t get that one.

    • marc says

      Sep 5, 2016 at 11:16 am

      @ Henry jones, Mostly Avast, and they have done it a few times, maybe they didn’t block you, but they blocked plenty of others with their AV
      https://freespeechdefense.net/2015/06/false-positive-virus-warnings/

    • t. says

      Sep 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm

      Henry jones, I was blocked for some time from JW, at one point in the past, though I am not sure whether it was Avast or another protection software; I had both on my laptop, then. Things have since returned to normal.

      • Henry jones says

        Sep 5, 2016 at 9:36 pm

        I had five hosts even running diff versions which didn’t block. I would agree with you it may have been something else or a combination. If it were one program, then every one using said program would have been blocked. But we all.reported using same versions and definition release as Marc was.

        Since it was inconsistent, leaves me to beleive it wasn’t intentional, maybe?

        • marc says

          Sep 5, 2016 at 10:01 pm

          If I remember @t. you were blocked twice over the last few years, once my firewall picked up that your IP had some issue (previously used by a spammer), you resolved that or it resolved itself, but also you were blocked by Avasts web filter due to a false positive.

          @Henry jones, that was a long time ago, they (avast) admitted they were generating a false positive, didn’t know why we’d been listed as the encoded javascript they complained about is used on 10s of thousands of other wp blogs who were not blocked, it did make a brief appearance back on their malware blacklist, but they removed it before i got around to contacting them again, all clear for 6 months at least, but the initial block did take a week to remove, and only after many of our mutual users emailed them. I have no idea how we were initially blacklisted, they do their own research and are very competent, so don’t rely on a reporting algorithms like FB. It was suggested that at the same time them being allowed to market in Iran could have been connected, i have no idea, an employee who thought “i can do some jihad here” would be my guess there.
          the delay of a week in total is unusual, I have had dozens of sites that actually had had malware on correctly blacklisted at Avast, that I have, once cleaned up the hack have had them remove the blacklisting, in usually less than 24 hours, never more than 48. I only published a post on the subject when I saw something was going wrong.

        • t. says

          Sep 5, 2016 at 10:14 pm

          Marc, I am really impressed; you have a good memory!

  27. R says

    Sep 6, 2016 at 1:50 am

    Since when does Sufism not teach violent jihad?

  28. andy from the cross says

    Sep 6, 2016 at 4:40 am

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fascism

    wow. urban dictionary isn’t just for laughs…

  29. sally says

    Sep 20, 2016 at 6:04 am

    type Hijra into google and you get a mindbending blurb that says it means transgenderism in Hindi. The real definition appears in wiki a bit further down the page and the words you can read of the definition from the google page says “hijra may mean migration …”

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

  • revereridesagain on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • James Lincoln on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • Carol on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • James Lincoln on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • Jayme 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.