Last year, after Islamic jihadis tried to murder Pamela Geller and me in Garland, Texas, “journalist” Cathy Young published not one, but two lengthy and mendacious rants attacking us (here and here) — and those followed several other broadsides against me over the years: Young is a determined and longtime apologist for jihad terror. Yet here she is outraged that the Southern Poverty Law Center, which she comically terms a “civil rights group” (here’s what it really is: a hard-Left smear agency for profit) has dared to include Ayaan Hirsi Ali and especially Maajid Nawaz on its latest hit list of “anti-Muslim extremists.”
Young doesn’t realize, or would never admit, that what the SPLC is doing now to Hirsi Ali and Nawaz (and thirteen others, including me) is exactly the same thing that she has done repeatedly to me, as well as to Pamela Geller, over the years. Young would doubtless insist that there is legitimate criticism of Islam and jihad terror on the one hand, and “anti-Muslim extremism” on the other, and the two things are not the same. Yet the SPLC has just shown that they make no such distinctions, and neither does the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) or any of the other purveyors of the “Islamophobia” myth. Young and Nawaz would claim that there is a difference between what he does and what those whom they think deserve to be on the list do, and that the SPLC, upstanding “civil rights group” that it is, has just missed it, but their only basis for this claim is the same kind of innuendo, half-truth, distortion and outright lie that the SPLC has now employed against Nawaz and Hirsi Ali. Geller and I and others on the SPLC’s list have been smeared and defamed for years by people such as…Cathy Young. Now the same tactics are being turned on their friends.
Pardon me if I do not shed a tear. This whole episode only illustrates what I’ve pointed out for years: no criticism of Islam or opposition to jihad terror, no matter how mild or carefully couched (or accurate), is acceptable to the Left (such as the SPLC) and its Islamic supremacist allies. Young and Nawaz and the others who are enraged about his inclusion on the list, but not about the list itself, may someday wake up to that. But I won’t be holding my breath.
“Civil rights group veers off course,” by Cathy Young, Newsday, November 1, 2016:
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group founded 45 years ago with a focus on combating hate and extremism, has often come under fire from conservatives who argue its classification of extremists and hate groups has a left-wing bias — mainly because of disputes over labeling traditionalist views of homosexuality as anti-gay hate. But now the center has done more to discredit itself than its worst enemies could by branding critics of radical Islamism — including a liberal Muslim reformer — as Muslim-hating bigots.
The center’s “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists,” released last week and compiled with Media Matters for America and two other left-of-center advocacy groups, includes 15 men and women. The report urges the media to treat them as “propagandists . . . far outside of the political mainstream” and their views as “toxic” and dangerous.
Some critics have taken issue with the entire list. However, the label fits some of the people on it — those who paint nearly all Muslims as potential terrorists and violent jihadists and even argue that Islam does not qualify for First Amendment protections.
One of the most notorious people on the list, anti-“Islamization” activist Pamela Geller of [location redacted], has compared a proposed Islamic center and mosque in downtown Manhattan with a Ku Klux Klan center and accused President Barack Obama of jihadist sympathies. Geller has voiced support for perpetrators of war crimes against Muslim civilians in the Balkans and relentlessly stoked Islamists-under-the-bed paranoia in America.
This is, of course, a highly tendentious mischaracterization in many ways, covered in the two rebuttals (here and here) to Young’s earlier hate screeds. But note that Young writes “Pamela Geller of” a certain location. Is she trying to signal to jihadists who may want to enforce the Islamic State’s death fatwa against Pamela Geller where they might find her? Is she trying to get Geller killed? Or just intimidate her into silence? Having signally failed to make her smears against Geller and me stick in the past, is Young moving to a new level of thuggery? No one else’s location is given in the article.
Other names on the list are questionable, to say the least….
But the most bizarre choice is the inclusion of Maajid Nawaz, a British Pakistani Muslim. An ex-radical turned reformer, Nawaz heads the Quilliam Foundation, which promotes moderate Islam. He has spoken out against anti-Muslim hate. His extremist crimes? Nawaz has warned that many mainstream Muslim organizations which reject terrorism nonetheless espouse Islamism (i.e. the imposition of authoritarian Islamic norms by political means). Also, he has tweeted a cartoon of Jesus and Muhammed “despite the fact that many Muslims see it as blasphemous to draw Muhammad.” Is violation of Islamic blasphemy laws now a form of hate?…
The report strips the center of all credibility as a voice against extremism. It also validates the perception of many on the right that “political correctness” makes it impossible to criticize modern Islam’s very real problem with radicalism. That perception helps fuel the truly toxic anti-Muslim and anti-liberal backlash exemplified by the rise of Donald Trump.

Jay Boo says
The SPLC feeding frenzy is at fever pitch now as Hillary nears the finish line. They are drinking in extra doses of anti-Islamophobia potion to discredit anyone who even remotely supports a Donald Trump presidency.
I predict that SPLC will likely back off Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Nawaz after the election if Hillary wins.
El Cid says
There is real confusion here, isn’t there? She can’t figure it out. She thinks you and Pam are the enemy! To me, you sound like a liberal from 1965.
I blame Obama and even Bush.– religion of peace indeed. And Reagan’s actions in supporting the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. He had no idea what he was playing with.
The Western political class understood the real dangers of Islam for generations before that. Islam had lived through the rise of Attaturk and his clarity.
Was it Saudi propaganda and petro dollars?
Jack Diamond says
Nawaz rightly feels that he doesn’t belong there. Because he is a dishonest stealth jihadist peddling the taqiyya- muda’rat deceptions of the nice Islam, the Islam with Western-values, that doesn’t exist. Of course he’d be offended. He’s doing his part.
As my contribution to an “anti-Muslim hate crime” i.e. speaking truthfully about the teachings of Islam and example of Muhammad, I give you ex-Muslim Ali Sina on the likes of Nawaz & Cathy Young:
“Since, thanks to Islamic terrorism the interest to know Islam has peaked and Islam has come under scrutiny, the westerners began asking, where are the moderate Muslims. Well, there is none. The concept is absurd. Muslims view this issue differently. You are either a ‘good’ practicing Muslim or a bad wishy-washy Muslim. It’s the latter group that the westerners have misnamed moderate Muslims. As far as Muslims are concerned they are ‘hypocrites.’ Not surprisingly, the ‘moderates’ also confess being hypocrites. They will tell you they believe in Islam but they are not good Muslims. In the back of their minds however, they plan to become ‘good’ Muslims once they have done all the ‘sins’ and enjoyed life enough.
“The truth is that every Muslim knows that Islam cannot be reformed, but the idea has its appeal for the non-Muslims. When there is a demand for something there will be someone who will rise to satisfy that demand.
“The so called reformers of Islam are misguided at best and deceptive at worst. Their efforts should not be welcomed. Whatever their intention, whether genuine or disingenuous, they are pulling wool over the eyes of non-Muslims and as the result giving legitimacy to a very dangerous creed.
“What is the point of reforming a religion founded by a mentally deranged man who committed so much evil on Earth, lied, deceived, raped, tortured, raided, looted, massacred and committed the most despicable crimes? Why keep his cult alive and his memory honored? He deserves scorn, not recognition?
“Reforming Islam is impossible. It is either a dilution or a ruse. Jihad is based on two pillars, war and deception. I don’t want anyone to be fooled by the soothing promises of Muslim reformers. Moderate Islam does not exist. It’s a myth.
“I do not trust Muslims who are against Sharia. I do not understand them. What they say does not add up. I don’t know what they are up to. I do not trust people who say, I am a follower of Muhammad, but I do not follow Muhammad. There is something fishy, something dishonest and hypocritical about their claim…Islam cannot be reformed. They tried it in every imaginable way. The Mu’tazelis tired it, the Sufis tried it, hundreds of old and new schools tried it and they all failed. If you cannot stomach the Sharia, why do you want to keep Islam at all?
“Thousands of young Muslims join ISIS. They all come from moderate Muslim families. It is easy to radicalize them. You ask them whether they believe in the Quran. To which they respond yes. Then you read it to them and show them that God enjoins jihad, that their parents who prefer this world to the next are hypocrites, and the Quran orders true believers to not associate with the hypocrites nor take them as friends and guardians, even if they are their father and brothers.
“Muslims don’t care how others interpret the Quran. They are not illiterate. They can read for themselves. Those who read the Quran and Tafseer know that the so called radicals have the correct understanding of the Quran. The solution to end the Islamic violence is not to lie more and claim Muhammad was a man of peace. The solution is to tell the truth and show them that the Al Qaida, the Wahhabis and the mullahs of Iran are the real Muslims. The differences between them are superficial. They perfectly understand the spirit and the essence of Islam and follow the examples of Muhammad. It is my belief as well as experience that most Muslims, once see the ugly truth, will leave Islam.
“That is how we can put an end to Islamic violence, with truth, not with more lies. But truth is ugly, so most people prefer lies. Lies mask the truth. That is why Zuhdi Jasser and Tark Fatah get invited by the Media and ex-Muslims are ignored.
“Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of Resurrection, they will be consigned to most grievous suffering? For God is not unmindful of what you do.” (Q.2:85).”
alisina.org
——————————————
Oh Cathy, I can fix you up with a good dentist….
Mubarak says
?
gravenimage says
Good post, Jack.
Shmooviyet says
“Modern islam’s very real problem with radicalism”?? Modern, as in post-WW II? Notice also she writes “anti-muslim” rather than “anti-islam”. Women who want to escape islam need not seek advice from her.
These phoney lovers of humanity are showing their true, UGLY colors.
MAN up and defend all or none.
Westman says
Dear Cathy Young,
The SPLC is a business for it’s administration. The CEO is paid $333,000+, and the head lawyer gets $337,000+, not counting all the perks. It owns net assets of over $300,000,000.
There are about, “1,097,689 public charities. 105,030 private foundations. 368,337 other types of nonprofit organizations, including chambers of commerce, fraternal organizations and civic leagues. (Source: NCCS Business Master File 4/2016)” in the US.
Many NGOs are created for a purpose that may be accomplished or diminished over time, and then it must hunt for others to sustain the created infrastructure. Some are even created to give the CEO a good salary.
The SPLC is an NGO that has become so large that its main product is keeping itself in the public eye to enhance the likelyhood of a donation when its solicitation arrives in your mailbox. It spends $10 million for solicitations, and $6 million for administrative expenses(salaries for employees).
What do you call an organization that builds up its net worth to $300 million rather than spending it for the benefit of the poverty-stricken it claims to serve? A business.
Poor Cathy, you really thought it was an objective altruistic “righter of wrongs” when it turns out to be a sloppy subjective business that bends in the direction of maximum contributions from leftists.
LB says
Exactly! The founders of SPLC are not only rolling in dough, but are also pushing their stealth jihadi agenda with incredible success. It’s a win-win for muslims, lose-lose for non-muslims. A sad state of affairs.
Angemon says
Whose fault is it that the SPLC hasn’t seen a “critic of radical islam” that they didn’t consider a “muslim-hating bigot”? Whose fault is it that the crocodile you’ve been feeding is now turning on your friends?
Westman says
Amen.
Tony says
Ms. Young was recently interviewed by Dave Rubin on his youtube channel for her opinions on SJW, the alt-right, & other items. Dave Rubin is a reasonable host who sincerely tries to give all thoughtful voices a fair shot. I listened to the interview and said there woudl be a follow-up interview with her. I think it would help if beforehand he became aware of her vendetta against Robert Spencer & Pam Geller. Maybe you can even persuade him to invite Spencer or Geller for an interview so his audience could decide who makes more sense. At any rate, it is imperative that commenators be polite and not hurt our credibility with insults about Ms. Young (even if she deserves them). Here is the link to the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlahrDewrXQ
Westman says
It’s a credibility game on a foundation of sand. Ms Young is upset because an organization with more perceived “credibility” than herself has put the credibility of all who support Hirsi Ali and Nawaz in question(not to mention the other smears with which she agrees). For the aware, the SPLC is an organization without much credibility that makes its living by lifting up social rocks and looking for anything it can call, with a little paint, oppression.
I feel sorry for Ms Young for being in a game full of dishonest players that is saturated with subjective “education”. University students are daily fed questionable social information while not having any experience with which to measure its veracity and applicability; and continue to trade it until meeting a contradiction.
Ms Young has just discovered that there is subjectiveness in the very things she has championed. That must be disconcerting.
JIMJFOX says
This article and the informative comments made is quite possibly the best piece Robert Spencer
has ever published. SPLC exposes itself as the ISIS of the American Left.
west_rhino says
David Barton characterized SPLC well a few years ago as a hate group and everyone else ought to apply this label to a group that has little problem defaming, libeling and slandering anything right of a far left position or vaguely smacking of Judaeo Christian morals and ethics