• 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

Letter to Rachel Maddow: Massive failure on the left

Sep 7, 2016 12:07 pm By Joel Shapiro

I sent this letter to Rachel Maddow three times over a period of two months (slight edits in each iteration) and have received no response from Maddow or her team.

maddow

Dear Rachel,

In your program on the Orlando terror attack, you made the incredibly important point that Muslims don’t have a lock on bigotry. You featured a couple of extremely discriminatory preachers on the Christian Right. Bravo.

Nevertheless, it is the next step that defines the impact of liberalism in the world, and perhaps even the future of liberalism and the left.

When we leftists see discrimination around the world, we criticize, march, demonstrate, and raise money. We take action. And we are aggressively critical of reactionary politics on the “Christian Right.” When we see discrimination on the “Muslim Right,” however, we often do NOT take action. In fact, we do the opposite. Leftists tend to block criticism and action. Instead of hitting the streets to fight discrimination on the Muslim Right (both in the Muslim world and in the West), leftists often direct attention away from the discrimination, as you did on your program.

The unfortunate result of this strategy is that the victims of Muslim bigotry have no champions — or certainly very few champions on the left. Sadly, leftists are doing a better job of protecting Muslim bigots from criticism than standing up against their bigotry. When it comes to reactionary politics on the Muslim Right, western leftists are more passionate about protecting the bigots than the victims of their bigotry and supremism.

Let me share a few avoidance and misdirection tactics that we see everyday form our fellow leftists. I’m sure you will recognize all of them.

“Don’t criticize that act of Muslim discrimination because…”

· “Not all Muslims are bigots.” BUT neither are all Christians — nevertheless we find a way to stand up against bigotry on the Christian Right.
· “Islam is diverse / not monolithic.” BUT so is Christianity — and yet here we are standing up against bigotry by Christians.
· “Criticizing Islamic extremism will offend Muslims.” BUT the vast majority of Muslims are moderate and peaceful and therefore won’t be (or shouldn’t be) offended by criticism of bigotry on the Muslim Right. Many Muslims in the West are escaping oppression by radical Islamists. Only the bigots themselves will be offended, and it would be absurd to withhold critique of bigotry because it might hurt the feelings of the bigots.
· “Criticizing Islam and/or Muslims incites Islamophobia; there could be a violent backlash.” BUT criticism of every group runs that same risk. We can’t stop all political critique out of fear of misinterpretation. We have to be responsible in our critique, of course, but we must continue fighting against all forms of oppression despite the risks. In any case, the fact that this caution is only applied to Muslims proves that it is disingenuous anyway—another tactic for defending Muslim bigots from criticism.
· “Who are you to criticize another culture / religion?” Sensitivity to other cultures is indeed important, BUT critique from within and without are both acceptable and valuable. It would be totally unrealistic to insist that only Christians on the right are allowed to criticize the Christian Right; that only Jews are allowed to criticize Israeli policy; that only Germans are allowed to criticize Nazism; etc. While reformation comes from within, external pressure can be honest, ethical, and valuable. Any human being can stand up for human rights and speak out against discrimination, racism, and injustice. What happens when there are no champions for women’s rights in Afghanistan (because the champions have been censored or killed)? Are Afghani women destined for eternal oppression because outsiders don’t want to judge Afghani culture? That would be a shameful and disingenuous position to take.

Criticizing racism is not racist. Further, tolerance of other cultures and religions should be extremely generous, BUT only to a point: we have no obligation to tolerate intolerance. Critique, of course, must be respectful, fair, honest, and rational, rather than being mean-spirited, slanderous, hate speech. But we have no moral obligation to protect bigots from critique. And we are negligent (as reporters, intellectuals, citizens of the world) if we suppress/censor news about discrimination and violence done in the name of any ideology, culture, or religion, including radical Islam and the “Muslim Right.”

Let me make my point one last time by reversing the tables. What would you say to this?

Question: “Those Christian preachers are saying the most morally repugnant things about the LGTBQ community. Don’t we have to stand up against them in some way?” Answer: “Ah, don’t worry about it. Christianity doesn’t have a lock on discrimination against gays. There is some pretty horrible discrimination against LGTBQ in the Muslim world as well. In some countries, Muslims are throwing gays off roofs. And besides, Christianity is highly diverse and the vast majority of Christians are moderate and peaceful. It’s not right to paint them all with a broad brush stroke. Just leave it alone.”

Question: “There is significant oppression of women in conservative Christian communities around the world. What should we do about it?” Answer: “Don’t worry, Christianity doesn’t have a lock on discrimination against women. In some Muslim communities we are still seeing clitoridectomies (FGM), honor killings, sex slavery, gender apartheid, blaming women for rape, stoning women for adultery, and so on. So just leave it alone. And besides, who are you to judge the Christians and their unique culture—you are not Christian, so that kind of critique is kind of bigoted (discriminatory), don’t you think? And we certainly wouldn’t want to create a backlash against innocent Christians, most of whom are moderate. Just leave it alone.”

As soon as you turn the tables, you can see how ridiculous those arguments are. But they are not only ridiculous. They are a complete abrogation of ethics. And they are aiding and abetting racism, discrimination, and terror.

If you do nothing against discrimination, you are tacitly accepting it. And if you block criticism of discrimination, then you are aiding and abetting that discrimination.

How can we (on the left) have the moral high ground if we stand against discrimination everywhere in the world with the exception of discrimination by Muslims? How can we have the moral high ground if we stand against Islamophobia but tolerate supremism and racism by extremist Muslims? We can’t. But at the end of the day this is not about maintaining the moral high ground. It is a question about the kind of world we want to live in. It is a question about the kind of world we create when we criticize (stand up against) some forms of discrimination but not others; when we protect certain bigots from criticism; and when we defend people who hate us and our values—including the values that defend their rights and that enable different peoples to live together peacefully in a multi-cultural society. (To put things into perspective: all Western societies, however flawed, are far more liberal and multi-cultural than fundamentalist Islamic states. Likewise, Israel is far more liberal and multi-cultural than Gaza and the West Bank. And Netanyahu is far, far, far to the left of Mashal and Abbas.)

No matter how many times we deconstruct the concept of universal human rights, the left should always work to protect women, LGTBQ, Jews, and other vulnerable minorities from discrimination, racism, oppression, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and the like. Muslim supremism is every bit as repugnant and dangerous as white and Christian supremacism.

I think many people are fooled by the fact that Muslims are a tiny minority in Saskatchewan and Montana. All they see is how much that tiny, vulnerable minority needs protection. What they forget is that Muslims are a great civilization on this planet, a majority religion, with 50+ states, the largest voting block at the UN, oil wealth, and almost a quarter of the world’s population. Globally, Muslims are not the little guy. There are one of the big guys. And as one of the big guys they need to be subjected to constant and vigilant critique—not coddling, enabling, and appeasement. Every point at which Islam spills into politics — engages in political ideology — must be subjected to legitimate political critique, just like every other ideology on the planet. And for the very same reasons: promoting justice and defending human rights.

This is a Western value we can be proud of: holding the big powers accountable so they don’t oppress the little guys. This applies equally to the Christian Right and Muslim Right. Our critique of radical Islam has nothing to do with the moderate and peaceful majority of Muslims. In fact, we should expect moderate Muslims to join us in opposing Islamist supremacism and terror.

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: Leftist/Islamic Alliance, moral equivalence, Useful idiots, willful ignorance Tagged With: Rachel Maddow


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Ren says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 12:23 pm

    Rachel Maddow is as dumb as her glasses. Saw her on Youtube. Can’t bear her persona and humor.

    • Carmel says

      Sep 7, 2016 at 1:28 pm

      Idem for me.

  2. Sophie Maele says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 12:37 pm

    It’s all pretty simple. If Jihadists attack and kill people of European extraction, they are serving the same evil god as the Cultural Marxists who lust for the death of Western Civilization. At their core, these Cultural Marxists understand their own inherent evil. They want the suppression of Christianity, death for the pre-born, the destruction of Biblical marriage, the mainstreaming of perversion, indoctrination instead of education, the theft of wealth gained through honest work and the execution of those who oppose them. They know these things are evil, but cannot bring themselves to be honest about it. Their internal firewall of evil will not allow it. This generates self-hatred which they project onto people who are trying to do things that can only be summed up by the word “goodness”. Without Christ, they are left with no answer to Paul’s question: “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” They project their own hopelessness and suicidal tendencies onto others whose deaths they celebrate like the Children of Israel celebrating their own absolution through the sacrificing of an animal. Satan sifts them like wheat.

    • Les says

      Sep 8, 2016 at 5:12 am

      Amen Sophie.
      Obama, Hellary and Lieberals side with pure evil because they want “we the people” to become “we the barbarians” which then allows them to implement their Marixists supremist control.

  3. Emilie Green says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 12:44 pm

    “When the phone don’t ring, you’ll know it’s Rachel.”

    The left – always wrong, but never in doubt.

  4. Ann Inquirer says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    The letter is too long. She and her team won’t take the time. Better in small bites for these closed brained people.

    • JIMJFOX says

      Sep 7, 2016 at 6:06 pm

      Absolutely! Verbosity betrays the writer as unsure- great writers don’t need it and don’t use it.

      Try a simpler letter– “Rachel, you are the dumbest c*nt on the planet; go live in Pakistan.”

    • john sielman says

      Sep 7, 2016 at 7:46 pm

      more likely Rachael cam’t read

  5. Wellington says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    Good enough as it goes but it does suffer from two major flaws:1) Moral relativism, specifically that the Christian Right, even at its worst (e.g., the Westboro Baptist loons) pales, exceedingly pales, in numbers and actions compared to what the author calls the Muslim Right; and 2) The Christian theological blueprint is not a threat to liberty, equality under the law, a true Golden Rule for all, and other sensible and good things while the Islamic theological blueprint most definitely is——-in short, Christianity in theory is OK, Islam isn’t.

    • PRCS says

      Sep 7, 2016 at 2:52 pm

      A few more of the author’s other idiotic notions:

      Islamic extremism (how does compliance constitute extremism?)
      majority of Muslims are moderate and peaceful (until…? And what does that mean?)
      radical Islamists (as opposed to regular Islamists, how?)
      radical Islam (as Islam is a written ideology–amputations and all–what in Hell does that mean, exactly?)
      Islamophobia (so, fear of the horrific aspects of Islam he actually cited–is irrational? And to whom?)
      extremist Muslims (what is that supposed to mean, damn it?)
      West–more liberal/multiculti than fundamentalist Islamic states (so, no problem for Egypt’s infidels, eh?)
      critique of “rad” Islam has nothing to do with moderate/peaceful Muslim majority (yes, dopey, it does)

      It appears that the author’s ignorance of Islam drives the assertions, the inferences, that Muslims are not required to comply with Qur’an and Sunn’ah, and those that do are radical extremists.

      • mortimer says

        Sep 7, 2016 at 4:57 pm

        Agree with Wellington: (Islam is not correct in theory.)

        1) Moral Theory of Christianity: The Golden Rule – Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
        2) Moral Theory of Islam: The Us-Versus-Them Rule – Nice to Muslims, but ‘VIOLENT’ (ashidaa) against non-Muslim kafirs. (Koran 48.29)

        • Gee says

          Sep 8, 2016 at 8:43 am

          Never liked the Christian Golden Rule. What you consider acceptable is in fact often insulting to others.

          Try the Jewish Golden Rule. Do not do anything you find hateful. A much more neutral act.

      • billybob says

        Sep 7, 2016 at 9:27 pm

        I think (or at least, I hope) the author is trying to appear “reasonable” to the party his letter is addressed to. He make say something entirely different if he were to address the world at large.
        I like the part where he turned the tables, and thought that was well executed.

        • PRCS says

          Sep 8, 2016 at 8:08 pm

          But, much of what he has asserted, re: Islam, is nonsense.

      • balafama says

        Sep 9, 2016 at 12:18 am

        gee,
        what u find ok can be hateful to someone else . word play

    • JIMJFOX says

      Sep 7, 2016 at 6:10 pm

      Wellington, I’d go further- this is a puff piece of dhimmitude. WTF is the Muslim Right??
      As Erdogan said “Moderate Islam is an insult- Islam is Islam and that’s it”

      • Wellington says

        Sep 7, 2016 at 7:02 pm

        Oh well, JIMFOX, and thanking PRCS and mortimer for their salient comments as well as yours, only so much can be expected from a leftist since Leftism, like Islam, does terrible things to the mind.

        I was just trying to be kind and find positives in this leftist’s statements. Alas, I could only go so far and then truth, which is inimical to leftism as it is to Islam, would let me go no further.

    • Wellington says

      Sep 8, 2016 at 11:29 am

      Gee: That is a very strange way of stating the Christian Golden Rule. Also, the way you stated the Jewish Golden Rule could also lead to problems because what if one does something one does not find hateful but someone else would? I have always looked upon the true Golden Rule as being the same for Judaism and Christianity (ditto for other religions like Buddhism but not, of course, for Islam where the Golden Rule only applies to other Muslims, and not even to all Muslims because one Muslim (e.g., a Sunni) might think another Muslim (e.g., a Shiite) is not properly Muslim.

  6. August West says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    Mr Shapiro,

    I found a lot of insight in the quote from University of Missouri Melissa Click:

    “I need some muscle”

    The Left today has no military force to advance its agenda, and so needs to take its “Muscle” where it can get it.

    Notice Melissa Click did not say that she needs morally acceptable muscle. She did not say
    muscle that agrees with all aspects of The Left’s agenda.

    She simply said that she needs Muscle.

    The reason Ms Maddow has not chosen to respond to your notes is that she realizes that Islam provides the Muscle that The Left needs to advance The Left’s agenda.

    When I dust off Karl Marx I see that The Left’s agenda is to shatter the dictatorship of the burgeois in order to usher in the dictatorship of the proletariat. Then of course we transition into Utopia. For this you Muscle and lots of it. Islam provides a ready army that hates the status quo as much as The Left.

    I would hope that Ms Maddow does not like the terrorist tactics used by Islam, however, I assume that she can see the end that these tactics might enable.

    To paraphrase Saul Alinsky she, and others like her, have calculated that the particular means of Islamic Jihad (in all of its forms) justifies the particular end that she envisions.

    The Left needs some Muscle. It is really that simple.
    I submit that this is why The Left is not critical of Islam, and why Ms Maddow does not return your emails.

    • Les says

      Sep 8, 2016 at 5:23 am

      Exactly and the same Muscle that Muhammed (piece of pig shit be upon him) used for control. The Muslime dictators used these radical MuSlimes to gain power and the left thinks they can put a leash on these same Muslime animals but in the end they ALL lose their head in a bloody and violent end.

  7. JeffS says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    I made similar arguments to my brother-in-law in a long discussion about Islam and Trump. He decided to not listen to anything I said, but rather to continually accuse me of being a hater, a racist and having an “irrational fear of Muslims”. Most Leftists are so entrenched, they will probably respond like my brother-in-law or Rachel Maddow. However, I do think this type of reasoning presented by Joel Shapiro may be one of best ways to get through to Leftists that are real liberals; and by liberal, I mean someone with an open mind who is truly willing to listen to what others have to say.

  8. Don McKellar says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    In order for Rachel Maddow (and left-fascists like her) to read your letter and actually participate in a logical, factual discussion on the issues, she would have to turn off her political dogma programming which puts up a firewall and shuts down her brain’s intellectual capacity in favor of an emotional response. In short, the moment she starts reading a letter like yours, all she sees is red.

    It’s really hard to get something through to somebody who “thinks” with the irrational part of the brain and substitutes dogma for critical thinking. It really is the just the other side of the coin and can be compared to trying to reason with a religious nut. Not much difference at all.

    • Don McKellar says

      Sep 7, 2016 at 1:38 pm

      I would also argue that you, Joel, are actually a Liberal and hold true Liberal ideals and lines of reasoning. There is a clear difference between being a Liberal and a Leftist. A Liberal takes the time to educate themselves on the issues and their view on issues evolves with education and perspective. A Leftist never does: they are married to their dogma. In the case of somebody like Rachel Maddow, who has made a career out of being a politically correct Leftist, she has crossed into a Fascist level. She is a Left-Fascist and you are a Liberal. You have very little intellectually in common.

      We can see the difference between a Liberal and a Leftist in media by comparing two recognized figures and their different approach to Islam. Compare Bill Maher’s logical, fact-based Liberal view of Islam with Rachel Maddow’s illogical, dogma-dictated Leftist view of Islam.

      • Hugh Bart Vincelette says

        Sep 9, 2016 at 11:32 am

        I appreciate your pointing out the difference between a Liberal and a Leftist. I am afraid that too many people think they are one and the same. I am Liberal and I deplore the actions of Islamists and the so-called Islamic State.One thing in particular that bothers me , is the fact that many acts of terrorism have been carried out by western converts to Islam. There sems to be elements of Islam that easily foster extremism.
        Regarding a less lethal item in the belief system of many Muslims is their apparent objection to music. WTF? It has been demonstrated scientifically that music has numerous positive effects on human physiology. Imagine life without the Rolling Stones, Beatles, Ella Fitzgerald, Handel, and Mozart?

  9. ANON says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 1:34 pm

    This is the most clear and concise exposure of the current double standard within the mainstream media I have ever read. Should be somehow published, as an open letter, in all mainstream media outlets to let people reach their own conclusions.

  10. Jay Boo says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    I hate to say it but …
    I do not blame Rachel MAD COW for not responding.

    The letter was woefully naïve.
    Rachel and her lefty circle-jerkers will mock it.
    The idea that we can appeal with Lefty looneys using reason and logic fails right from the start. They see this as a sign of our weakness to appease. Anyone who believes that mild shaming of her with the added appeal to do the right thing is going to work is dealing with wishful thinking. Rachel has an agenda to spin and anything that questions her agenda is seen as an annoyance.

    The only way to get through to gay traitor and Muslim butt kisser Rachel Mad Cow is with shock and awe. One must shake her lesbian dominatrix booties off her clove hoven feet until she runs off in total defeat. Then excommunicate her from all of gaydom until she learns not to trample on fellow gays with her Islamic camel leather booties.

    • Angemon says

      Sep 7, 2016 at 2:11 pm

      Jay Boo posted:

      “The letter was woefully naïve.
      Rachel and her lefty circle-jerkers will mock it.
      The idea that we can appeal with Lefty looneys using reason and logic fails right from the start.
      ”

      Maybe. But there’s another possible target for the above letter. The “everyday person” who has yet to take a stance and is studying the arguments from both sides.

      • Norger says

        Sep 8, 2016 at 11:17 pm

        You nailed it Angemon. The NSM’s hypocrisy and transparent double standard they apply to Islam vs any other religion has to be laid out in detail for the “fence sitters” to see.

        The western media’s reporting on Islamic terrorism is cowardly; they can never bring themselves to discuss the obvious links between Islamic theology (which terrorists aren’t shy about citing) and each new atrocity. Then we get the inevitable “let’s soothe the feelings of Muslims while people are lying dead in Islam’s name” opinion pieces that inevitably follow every terrorist act, like this one from Ms Maddow (or another from Sally Kohn). I think Mr. Shapiro did a good job of exposing Ms Maddow’s intellectual dishonesty and lack of a moral center. To me, the problem is that even discourse as polite as Mr. Shapiro’s (I agree with the posters who say he pulled a lot of punches) is simply not considered acceptable to be discussed in the MSM today.

  11. Westman says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    It’s always about money and reputation.

    Ms. Maddow knows quite well that half the “moderate” US Muslims believe she should be removed from the planet because of her sexual orientation, and knows also, that they have no constitutional power to exercise that governing part of the Islamic religion. The United States and it’s laws are her protector as is the avoidance of any statement that would arouse the ire of Muslim Radicals.

    More importantly, she is an employee of her sponsors who pay the bills. The sponsors also have a finger in the wind to determine the attitude of the consuming public about political, racial, and religious matters. If Ms. Maddow had the courage of a Spencer or Geller, she would soon find herself without enough sponsors.

    The criticisms of Christian failings have been so ubiquitous for so long that few sponsors are offended or worried about losing consumers of their products when they are aired. For example: The Catholic church will never fully recover from the priest-boys sex scandal and all the media can pile-on at each opportunity without losing sponsors.

    Unfortunately, getting the truth to the public about the ideology and governing ambitions of Islam requires a sponsor’s willingness to lose money for period until the public is commonly in agreement, or at least, willing to tolerate the message. Ironically, the sponsor is also an obstacle to the public’s access to the truth that would lead to a common knowledge of Islamic Ideology.

    The public IS getting wiser to the constant reports of radical terrorism by the mentally ill, non-Muslims, who yell, allah-hooey. It’s just a matter of time before a higher level of Islam criticism is permissible due to more terrorist acts in the West, and the behavior of Muslim “refugees” in Europe.

    Ms. Maddow is a cog in a larger money making machine. She is forced to avoid criticism of Islam to stay employed and avoid physical danger. She is not blind to the fact that the truth-tellers, Spencer, Geller, Wilders, and LePen all need bodyguards.

    In essence, though an admirable person, Ms. Maddow has compromised for money and safety. She guards the very Islam that calls for her destruction.

  12. Dan says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    Only problem I have is the writer claiming how the “left” reacts.

    They never “deflect” criticism. They criticize.

    And I’ve never seen a peaceful leftist protest yet.

    If there isn’t general vandalism, like shattered glass and looting, there’s a ton of litter everywhere.

    The first Tea Party protest I was at, everybody allowed those not attending, to go about their business.

    Traffic was not blocked.

    And I’ve never seen a more bored bunch of cops, LITERALLY leaning against their cars having coffee and donuts in the Crispy Creme parking lot.

    What about the left damaging oil equipment?

    Or spiking trees.

    This never made the news, but about 20 years ago a radical animal rights group had targeted various leaders in the food sector that involved meat production, and they would shoot them at traffic stops and such.

    And then there’s the unions.

    And Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground.

    The left has taken all sorts of violent actions

  13. Vito says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 2:10 pm

    Well written Robert! Rachel Maddow doesn’t have the guts to read your letter, nor comment. The are intellectually superior and only see things as Right or Left, as in Christian Right or Muslim Right. Maddow cannot afford to expose her progressive ignorance concerning Islam. You made a great statement in your letter, next to the last paragraph, that should open more eyes:
    “I think many people are fooled by the fact that Muslims are a tiny minority in Saskatchewan and Montana. All they see is how much that tiny, vulnerable minority needs protection. What they forget is that Muslims are a great civilization on this planet, a majority religion, with 50+ states, the largest voting block at the UN, oil wealth, and almost a quarter of the world’s population”.

    Islamists, including the Muslim Brotherhood, know exactly what they are doing in America. They are not these poor minorities. The Explanatory Memorandum states their plan clearly. Muslim Brotherhood & their front groups need useful idiots like Rachel Maddow to further their cause. Thanks for all you do!

    • eduardo odraude says

      Sep 8, 2016 at 1:17 am

      The letter was not written by Robert.

  14. TheOldOligarch says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 3:20 pm

    It’s a wasted effort, he’s taking Leftism at face value, acting as if all it’s claims of moral superiority are true. Unsurprising perhaps since he does say ‘we leftists’ so it’s safe to say he is one himself.

    The heart of Leftism is cowardice and treason, so they will never spend any significant effort against Islam, which they rightly see as a battering ram against the Western civilization that they hate.

    • Champ says

      Sep 7, 2016 at 4:49 pm

      “The heart of Leftism is cowardice and treason” …

      Bingo!

  15. Billy Lynch says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    LOL…What’s really ironic is a transgender like Ralph Maddow refusing to acknowledge that Sharia Law condemns him to death. Maddow is no more a woman than Bruce Jenner.

  16. Myxlplik says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 6:22 pm

    Rachel Maddow is less concerned about Liberal ideals than she is about furthering the goals of her political party. She’ll hang anyone out to dry who doesn’t help the primary objective.

  17. Sam says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    Robert excellent job again!

    You know better than all of us though that you are applying logic, common sense or right analytical skills or whatever you call it to a liberal argument. My experience has been logic does not work with a liberal and with a muslim, ever.

    And you know that very well.

    Thanks for all you do!!!

  18. Kay says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 8:31 pm

    This letter is a good way to get a dent into “progressive” thinking. It answers their objections by accepting them as worthy of addressing and then shows the flaw in reasoning.

    To get some people to admit and then stand against Muhammeden terrors may be the best we can hope for. To attempt a discussion of the absolute merits of Mohammedism or in relation to Christianity would simply be shut down.

  19. Eric Jones says

    Sep 7, 2016 at 11:57 pm

    Those that cover up for the Islamic extremist have made the statement that Islam is not monolithic. That was true in the past. As recent as the early 1970’s, when people I know who traveled in Muslim countries did in fact state to me that Islam was expressed differently in different Muslim countries. When the oil boom happened that changed. Billions of dollars fllowed into Saudi Arabia. Among the things they did with it was to spread Wahabiism through out the Muslim world. Saudi money was used to build mosque and maddras’s that taught Wahabiism in many Muslim countries. Islam has been standardized by Wahabi ideology.

    Eric

    • eduardo odraude says

      Sep 8, 2016 at 1:28 am

      A misdiagnosis. You are confusing Islam — which is a doctrine based on Qur’an, Hadith, Sira, and the schools of Islamic law — with the degrees to which Muslims in different countries adhere to the doctrine. It’s not that there are many Islams — it’s that there are many degrees of adherence to Islam. Islam was not standardized by Wahabism — it was standardized by Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira. It was standardized when the doors of ijtihad — independent reason — were closed a thousand years ago, because Muhammad had said “My community will never agree on an error.” Thus when the Islamic community came to agreement at thousand years ago about issues that had been disputed in Islam, that agreement “proved” that what they agreed on had been established for all time as true — thus the gates of ijtihad — independent reason — closed. Of course there is some wiggle room in interpreting Islam, and some diversity of result, but the amount is greatly exaggerated — the four main schools of Islamic law, for example, agree on about 80% of their rulings. They all agree that a Muslim who leaves Islam should be killed, and differ only on details, such as how many times the apostate should be asked to return to the fold before being killed.

  20. Kakodaemon says

    Sep 8, 2016 at 12:27 am

    The left will never concede any of those points. They will see Islam as a passive, peaceful religion oppressed by the West until the day some “non-Islamic” jihadis separate their empty heads from their bodies. And they will apologize to their killers and blame the Crusades.

    They will die, but as least they NEVER, EVER were on the same side of the issue as those hated, horrible, right wing xenophobes.

  21. eduardo odraude says

    Sep 8, 2016 at 1:42 am

    We should be happy for an ally on the left, even if we disagree with some of his points. We need all the allies on the left we can get. We should be generous to this one. Containment of Islam is unlikely to succeed without allies on the left. The counterjihad is continually paralyzed by being caught up in left-right enmity and partisanship. Too many people on both left and right care more about their hatred of the other side than they care about protecting freedom from the expansion of totalitarian Islam. If you believe in democracy, then left and right are simply life, and to want to get rid of one or the other is the end of democracy. But to want to get rid of a totalitarian system like Islam, or at least contain it — that saves freedom and democracy. Just as most people on the right are not fascists, most people on the left are not communists. Let’s drop our hatred of the democratic opposition — I’m assuming you want to live in a democracy — and focus the animus instead on the totalitarianism of Islam. Or if you must focus an animus on the democratic opposition, it should be several orders of magnitude less than the animus you focus on Islamic totalitarianism.

    • Les says

      Sep 8, 2016 at 5:46 am

      Dear eduardo
      There is no way to “get rid” of either side but to not think that one side will win and one side will lose is naive. The left plays to win just like evil plays to win. This is the reality of a democracy. One side wins and one side loses. The other truth is that it is no longer a right vs left but it is a right vs wrong and good vs evil.

  22. Les says

    Sep 8, 2016 at 5:04 am

    Dear Robert

    I agree with your letter and I assume you know it won’t change the mind of the lesbian Madcow’s bigotery and won’t change her real goal which is to use fake christians to destroy true Christianity.

    But I am surprised that you did not explicitly say that extreme Islam is true Islam. Moderate Muslims are only moderate because they are not following true Islam. True Islam is a supremist ideology just like liberal and progressive ideology is a supremist ideology. Madcow is a lesbian and she hates that true Christianity does condemn homosexuality as well as adultry, fornication, masterbasion, contraception etc which probable nearly every human has done. Jesus never called for the death of anyone violating these natural laws while Islam specially does call for death or dhimmitude.

    That disctinction and truth needs to be made loud and clear.

    • Les says

      Sep 8, 2016 at 5:25 am

      Correction:
      Dear Joel, not Robert.

  23. awake says

    Sep 8, 2016 at 8:42 am

    Who is Joel Shapiro, and why is he being granted the privilege of publishing this tripe here at this site?

    Even the one-hit wonder liberal in Bill Maher is more succinct than this guy, his delusional meanderings through religious moral relativism aside.

  24. common sense says

    Sep 8, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    Bury her waist deep and have her own friends and family stone her. That might get the message across, maybe FGM first and then some Muslim date rape, don’t forget throw acid in her face before its all over.
    Leftists are the biggest C___s I know period. Accusing everyone else of everything else to cover for their own self-loathing hated and animosity towards America. They are stuck in an abiding place and are afflicted.

    Telling the insane that they are dangerous and crazy usually does not work we just have to lock them up.

  25. Crimelord Canada says

    Sep 10, 2016 at 1:44 am

    Maddie is a liberal not a leftist.

  26. Chris says

    Sep 10, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    Well said Robert! Problem is “common sense is in very short supply in the 21st century and getting worse.” Read Ecclessiastes 10: 5-7. Read it and read it again. It’s the times we live in now when “servants are on the horses and princes walking as servants.” Our rulers are the servants….

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

  • ELI on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • 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

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.