• 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

Sam Harris and the collapse of the counter-jihad Left

Dec 14, 2016 3:26 pm By Robert Spencer

A few years ago, atheist writer Sam Harris became one of the very few high-profile figures on the Left to break ranks with the Left’s general denial of the jihad threat and willingness to ignore or even excuse the most inhumane Sharia oppression. His calling Islam “the mother lode of bad ideas” on a famous appearance on Bill Maher’s show with Ben Affleck was only the most notorious of many criticisms he made of Islam and jihad, to the fury of many of those who had previously admired his work. Indeed, the reaction was furious from what his friend and coauthor Maajid Nawaz dubbed “the regressive Left”: Glenn Greenwald and others skewered Harris as an “Islamophobe,” and Reza Aslan, with his typical dishonesty, misrepresented statements Harris had made in order to portray him as a racist, genocidal maniac.

Harris held out, but he was clearly stung by the tidal wave of negativity he received from people whom he had previously counted as friends and allies. He went out of his way to demonstrate that the straw man charge that he “hated all Muslims” was false: he coauthored a book with Nawaz, a Muslim reformer, and obediently shunned those who had been smeared by the likes of Greenwald and Aslan in exactly the way he had been, but who were identified with the Right — including me.

That was where the fatal weakness in Harris critique of jihad and Sharia began to manifest itself: just as three-time presidential election loser Henry Clay averred that he would “rather be right than President,” Harris was showing that he would rather be Left than counter-jihad. He began to make it clear that, despite his strong words, he wasn’t opposed to jihad terror and Islamic supremacism in any meaningful way, and Leftists were making sure that he couldn’t be. And so during the late presidential campaign, he came out strongly for Hillary Clinton, a candidate who accepted money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar even while knowing that they also funded the Islamic State, and who proclaimed against the evidence of every day’s headlines that “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” Indeed, Hillary Clinton has a long record of enabling the global jihad, but Sam Harris didn’t appear to be concerned about that, because in his view, the alternative was worse: Donald Trump was, said Harris, a “crazed man-child tearing at the threads” of our democracy. Why? For declaring that Clinton would be jailed if he became President: Harris echoed the standard Leftist talking point that in saying this, Trump was hinting that he would govern like a Third-World dictator, when in reality Trump was stating that the rule of law could and should apply even to the Clintons, who had so flagrantly and repeatedly flouted it over so many decades.

For those who were aware of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, the choice on November 8 was not difficult. Trump may be many terrible things, but he spoke with greater honesty about the ideological roots of jihad terror than any Presidential candidate than John Quincy Adams, and — despite a relentless campaign against him by Leftist Jewish organizations and publications — made it clear that he would end Obama’s eight-year diplomatic cold war against the state that is on the front lines of the global jihad, Israel. For Harris to choose instead a candidate so compromised to Islamic supremacist interests in so many ways as Hillary Clinton showed that he didn’t really care about containing and rolling back the jihad threat, or if he did, he had other priorities that far outweighed that one.

Harris showed yet again that he would rather be Left than counter-jihad when his friend and colleague Nawaz endorsed Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) for Chair of the Democratic National Committee, despite Ellison’s multiple ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. That Ellison is virulently anti-Semitic and collaborates closely with several organizations that have opposed every counter-terror measure that has ever been proposed or implemented doesn’t trouble Nawaz; he has never addressed the charges against Ellison, but simply supports him because he is a Muslim and a Leftist. Since Nawaz declared his support for Ellison several weeks ago, Harris has not repudiated Nawaz, or even declared any public disagreement with him on this issue; instead, a couple of weeks after Nawaz endorsed Ellison, Harris announced that they had made a documentary film together.

What kind of a world do Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz want? Apparently it’s one in which they oppose jihad terror while supporting jihad-enabling politicians. It seems as if, as far as they are concerned, one may speak out against jihad terror and Sharia oppression as long as one is determined not to do anything about either one, and indeed, gives active support to those who are helping the forces of jihad advance in the West.

And so this is the way the counter-jihad Left ends: with a whimper, not a bang. Sam Harris is to be commended for speaking the truth in places where it was decidedly unwelcome. But ultimately he has faltered in the breach, and made it clear that in order to oppose jihad terror and Islamic supremacism effectively, one must be willing to stand against the politically correct forces that are more vicious and relentless than ever, now that their hegemony has been challenged on a large scale. Sam Harris wasn’t. Few are. These are times that try men’s souls indeed. And after the trial, few are left standing.

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: "Islamophobia", Featured, free speech, Leftist/Islamic Alliance, Moderate Muslims Tagged With: Maajid Nawaz, Sam Harris


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Benedict says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    Cogent article!
    The Left is basically a forerunner for Islam. Sam Harris is left and at the same time a vocal critic of Islam and therefore caught in his own ambivalence.

    • Kiel says

      Dec 14, 2016 at 4:15 pm

      Precisely! Well stated.

    • Savvy Kafir says

      Dec 14, 2016 at 4:18 pm

      Islam is conservatism taken to Medieval extremes. Most of my fellow Lefties refuse to see that basic fact. If they ever do, we’ll see many more progressive/liberal counter-jihadis. I just hope that realization doesn’t come too late.

      • Benedict says

        Dec 14, 2016 at 4:40 pm

        Islam is a cold blooded religion that absorbs the warm human sentiments you project into it, and at the same time and in the same way it can make perfect use of hate, resentment and terror.
        It is this ambiguous Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde quality of Islam that in my opinion is so abominable and repulsive about this religion.

        • maghan says

          Dec 15, 2016 at 7:39 am

          What warm human sentiments? Kinda puzzled. No need to project anything into Islam. You just read and do what it says. For example, the Qur’an tasks Muslims with “slaying infidels wherever you find them”. There are many other such violent and wicked passages. So, again, what what “warm human sentiments” are absorbed by Islam?

        • Roy C says

          Dec 15, 2016 at 4:39 pm

          I have seen little good coming from this religion other than perhaps taking care of others within the clan sometimes. I’ve been an admirer of Mr. Harris so his support of Clinton was disappointing for sure. Given what is now taking place don’t be shocked if Trump never makes it to the white house. The recounts haven’t worked out so we’ll see if Soros and crew have bribed or threatened enough electors to overthrow the election. If that fails I won’t be surprised if Obama uses the Russian hacker excuse to declare a state of emergency and declare the election null and void. The lunatic left rarely gives up power once achieved. This election was in the bag and 8 more years of democratic rule would have produced the socialist workers paradise Obama has dreamed of his entire life. Conservatives really don’t understand the mind of true leftists – the ends always justify the means – always!!

        • al says

          Dec 16, 2016 at 3:48 pm

          Islam is not a religion… it is a cradle to grave ideology that was roughly patterned off of the Torah after Mohammad married the rich widow Jewess Kadija in the 580s AD. Mohammad was adopted into her religion and as he learned the story of Abraham he began to have visits from Gabrial. Over time he began to spread the stories that Gab told him in his dreams to those people who worked for him in the Caravaning business which he ran for Kadija. These stories were all based on a single all powerful and benevolent ‘God’. which was not the religion of Arabi at the time. This caused a huge problem with the Wise men of the Tribes and led to a conflict between Mohammad and his Elders in charge of his Tribe. Over time the stories he told of his dreams caused the Elders of his tribe to take the Caravan business away from Mohammad and put him on trial for his crime against the 100 gods of Arabi. Mohammad escaped from them and he and his people of the Caravan went to a Jewish/Christian city called Yathrib some 170 miles away from Quresh towards Egypt. From this new city Mohammad became a Caravan robber as his new business… And as he robbed a Caravan he took it one step further — he told the people of the Caravan they could either join his gang of thieves and share the booty or they could die by the sword.. Yathrib became the stronghold of Mohammad and the Jews and Christians of Yathrib never knew what was happening to their town. Soon the Elders of other Tribes got together and came to Quresh and complained about the lack of Caravans working throughout Arabi because of Mohammad. Then the Elders of Quresh started hunting for Mohammad and his band of thieves who were now numbering over 1000 fighting men.. They found that they were in Yathrib and sent a delegation to Yathrib to bring Mohammad home for trial… The delegation met with the City Elders but Mohammad was not there at the time, so the City Elders agreed to bring Mohammad to Quresh to face his Elders as soon as he returned.
          When Mohammad returned to Yathrib the City Elders called him in and told him what had transpired while he was gone.. Mohammad asked for a week to prepare for the trip and it was granted.. That weekend Mohammad and his gang attacked the city in the middle of the night and put all of the Jews and Christians to the sword the Arabs were given the choice to join Mohammad and his gang or die… Mohammad renamed the town Madina, and two weeks later they marched on Quresh and destroyed the city. All of the relatives of Mohammad was put to the sword if they did not join him and his gang, as were all Arabs. The town of Quresh was renamed Mecca.. Mohammad lived another 16 years and when he died there were no Christians or Jews alive in Arabi and all Arabs were under Islam…and the Quran..

      • eduardo odraude says

        Dec 14, 2016 at 5:28 pm

        Notably on the left, but to some extent on the right as well, the ignorance of Islam and the stupid things consequently said about it are kind of mind-boggling. The ignorance is abetted sometimes by leftish people with such an animus toward the right, that any enemy of the right is deemed a friend to the left without looking much into details. The left is not interested in scrutinizing Islam critically, because that’s what those troglodytes on the right are doing to Islam, and if the right is doing it, then doing it must be stupid, false, evil, and something to be hated. Thus the party of supposed sophisticates gets consumed by petty hatred of center-right conservatives and thus entirely loses sight of the bigger picture of a totalitarian movement seeking to destroy both left and right in the U.S. That’s leftist provincialism as pronounced as any backwoods redneck conservative’s version.

        • eduardo odraude says

          Dec 14, 2016 at 5:35 pm

          The totalitarian movement I meant: Islam.

        • Savvy Kafir says

          Dec 14, 2016 at 5:37 pm

          Yep.

        • maghan says

          Dec 15, 2016 at 7:44 am

          But the problem for the left is that Islam by all objective criteria Islam is a very, very conservative terrorist ideology. It is also racist and misogynist–yet the Left simply adores Islam. The left treats Muslims as if they are the new “chosen people”.

      • gravenimage says

        Dec 14, 2016 at 5:40 pm

        Islam is not “conservatism”, unless your yardstick is barbaric savagery. It has nothing to do with conservative values in the West.

        • Savvy Kafir says

          Dec 14, 2016 at 10:38 pm

          The True Believers of Islam are trying to maintain/conserve the barbarism & savagery of 7th Century Arabia. They are true conservatives. I’m not saying they’re Fox News enthusiasts or climate change deniers. But they’re definitely conservatives. They resist change and progress.

          And, to the degree that they take their religion seriously (wearing hijabs or head scarfs, keeping women segregated or powerless, entering into arranged marriages, etc.), most Muslims are conservatives.

        • Know Thy Enemy says

          Dec 15, 2016 at 4:26 am

          @Savvy Kafir,

          Is that what a ‘conservative’ is? Someone who resists change and progress?

          I thought a smart conservative was someone who would happily try out new things but making sure to keep a safety net [of sort] to fall back on just in case the new idea does not work out.

        • eduardo odraude says

          Dec 15, 2016 at 2:44 pm

          In a sense, Islam is not conservative at all, but “radical” — it seeks to introduce sharia governments all over the world, by force, fraud, or persuasion:

          Bernard Lewis, eminent historian of Islam and the Middle East, on Islam’s inherent totalitarianism and resemblances to communism

          From the essay “Communism and Islam” in International Affairs, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Jan., 1954), pp. 1-12:

          I turn now from the accidental to the essential factors, to those deriving from the very nature of Islamic society, tradition, and thought. The first of these is the authoritarianism, perhaps we may even say the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition…Many attempts have been made to show that Islam and democracy are identical — attempts usually based on a misunderstanding of Islam or democracy or both…In point of fact, except for the early caliphate, when the anarchic individualism of tribal Arabia was still effective, the political history of Islam is one of almost unrelieved autocracy…[I]t was authoritarian, often arbitrary, sometimes tyrannical. There are no parliaments or representative assemblies of any kind, no councils or communes, no chambers of nobility or estates, no municipalities in the history of Islam; nothing but the sovereign power, to which the subject owed complete and unwavering obedience as a religious duty imposed by the Holy Law. In the great days of classical Islam this duty was only owed to the lawfully appointed caliph, as God’s vicegerent on earth and head of the theocratic community, and then only for as long as he upheld the law; but with the decline of the caliphate and the growth of military dictatorship, Muslim jurists and theologians accommodated their teachings to the changed situation and extended the religious duty of obedience to any effective authority, however impious, however barbarous. For the last thousand years, the political thinking of Islam has been dominated by such maxims as “tyranny is better than anarchy” and “whose power is established, obedience to him is incumbent.”
          …Quite obviously, the Ulama of Islam are very different from the Communist Party. Nevertheless, on closer examination, we find certain uncomfortable resemblances. Both groups profess a totalitarian doctrine, with complete and final answers to all questions on heaven and earth; the answers are different in every respect, alike only in their finality and completeness, and in the contrast they offer with the eternal questioning of Western man. Both groups offer to their members and followers the agreeable sensation of belonging to a community of believers, who are always right, as against an outer world of unbelievers, who are always wrong. Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which- the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. There again, the content of belief is utterly different, but the aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same. The humorist who summed up the Communist creed as “There is no God and Karl Marx is his Prophet!” was laying his finger on a real affinity. The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith — a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy — might well strike a responsive note.

          Quoting Islam

        • ECAW says

          Dec 15, 2016 at 2:59 pm

          Thanks for that. Worth storing away.

        • gravenimage says

          Dec 15, 2016 at 7:32 pm

          Some values are time-tested and well worth conserving–those of Islam are *anything but*.

      • Allan says

        Dec 14, 2016 at 6:09 pm

        Why do you believe that “Islam is conservatism taken to Medieval extremes”?

        • Savvy Kafir says

          Dec 14, 2016 at 10:41 pm

          The most devout Muslims today behave very much like the conservative Christians of 600 years ago — and for the same basic reasons.

        • gravenimage says

          Dec 15, 2016 at 7:45 pm

          Savvy Kafir wrote:

          The most devout Muslims today behave very much like the conservative Christians of 600 years ago — and for the same basic reasons.
          ………………………

          Savvy Kafir, 600 years ago Christian Europe was in the middle of a revival of art and learning–the Renaissance. There is *nothing* like this in Islam.

      • Mirren10 says

        Dec 14, 2016 at 6:32 pm

        ”Islam is conservatism taken to Medieval extremes.”

        Rather a silly remark. What values does conservatism share with islam ? Absolutely none, that I’ve ever heard of. Do enlarge.

        • Savvy Kafir says

          Dec 14, 2016 at 10:55 pm

          It’s not such a silly remark, if you get your definition of conservatism by studying world history (or from the dictionary), rather than acquiring it from Rush Limbaugh or the pundits at Fox News.

          Conservatism means to resist change — or, in some cases, to advocate a return to an earlier state or condition. Progressives promote change. Conservatives resist change. (And honestly, these days, I don’t know what the f**k liberals are trying to do.)

          Broadly speaking, conservative Christians in America want us to return to the sort of society we had in the 1940s or ’50s. The True Believers of Islam — the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. — are determined to drag us all back into the 7th Century, and keep us there.

        • Wellington says

          Dec 15, 2016 at 12:57 am

          Conservatism does not mean to resist change but to resist stupid and unnecessary change. It’s reactionaries who resist virtually all change. Huge difference. Put another way, conservatives don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water, which the more liberal one is one does.

          Modern conservatives are also in the forefront of defending true freedom and thus are the real liberals in the sense of promoting liberty while modern liberals, call them leftists if you like, are enemies of freedom. Where the Left is most in control in America, i.e., college campuses, here is freedom least existent. I would also suggest you lay off the Limbaugh and Fox News diatribes. They’re getting really old and are really wrong. Limbaugh is a far greater defender of freedom, I mean real freedom, than leftist academics, the MSM and Democrats. Fox News, though it tilts right, has more balance to it than a network like CBS News where virtually everyone is leftist. Fox has had loads of leftist commentators like Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Charles Lane, Jeff Zeleny, Brenda Marshall, Bob Beckel, Susan Estrich, and Alan Colmes. Care to name any conservative at CBS News?

          I would close here by noting that some of what existed in the 1940s and 50s was much better, for instance far fewer babies born out of wedlock, an almost infinitely better school curriculum and very little excuse making for bad behavior. And please none of the crap about Republicans being more racist. A greater percentage of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than did Democrats. Reconsider things.

          I would

        • gravenimage says

          Dec 15, 2016 at 7:57 pm

          Good post, Wellington.

      • mortimer says

        Dec 14, 2016 at 7:37 pm

        Responding to Un-Savvy Kafir:

        No, sir, Islam is certainly not conservatism if you mean European Christian conservatism which was the actual force THAT SOUGHT AS MANY AS 200 TIMES TO ASSASSINATE ADOLF HITLER!

        Islam may in truth be called ARABIAN TRIBAL CONSERVATISM, since Islam conserves the tribal practices of 7th-century Arabia.

        Please be careful with your wording. Accurate THOUGHT is important and accurate WORDING even more important.

        • Savvy Kafir says

          Dec 14, 2016 at 11:15 pm

          Mortimer — obviously, I don’t mean “European Christian conservatism”. Or the 21st Century American brand of conservatism. I’m not talking about Fox News conservatism.

          As you said, Islam conserves the tribal practices of 7th Century Arabia — and the practices & teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and his savage “holy” book.

          The True Believers of Islam today are pursuing an agenda very similar to that of the conservative Christians of Medieval Europe, and they behave (and dress, and talk) in much the same way.

      • Ricardo Valadares says

        Dec 15, 2016 at 5:44 am

        Oh, so now lefties are capable of self criticism? Cute

      • maghan says

        Dec 15, 2016 at 7:58 am

        Savvy Kaffirs,

        Medieval Christians–if they erred from the teachings of Christ would have been “true and radical progressives” because they veered away and progressed beyond the pacifist teachings of Christ. Examples of the true teachings of Christ: “if you are punched on one cheek then just turn the other cheek”. “Heal the sick, feed the poor”. “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall see God”. “The meek shall inherit the earth”, etc.

        Nothing like that exists in the bloody, barbaric and primitive text called the “Quran”. Example: Isis is simply following the teachings in the Qur’an. When Isis fighters rape, enslave, murder, and lash, they point with great conviction to the relevant passages in the Qur’an.

    • Kurt says

      Dec 14, 2016 at 4:48 pm

      Benedict, not all liberals are pro-Islam in fact a lot are fed up with it. Many people like me are fed up and moving conservative just for this reason – but it’s not a good reason as there are some conservative issues I’m not on par with.

      • eduardo odraude says

        Dec 14, 2016 at 5:33 pm

        More liberals are needed who see Islam for what it is.

        Muhammad affirms that those who do not follow him will be slaughtered
        LINK: Page 222 (326 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad:

        Abu jahl said to them: “Muhammad alleges that if you follow him you will be kings of the Arabs and the Persians. Then after death you will be raised to gardens like those of the Jordan. But if you do not follow him you will be slaughtered, and when you are raised from the dead you will be burned in the fire of hell.” The apostle [Muhammad] came out to them with a handful of dust saying: “I do say that.”

        Quoting Islam

      • gravenimage says

        Dec 14, 2016 at 5:44 pm

        True, Kurt.

      • Celtic says

        Dec 15, 2016 at 7:12 am

        @Kurt

        Stop this Branding Bullocks.

        I am considered by a lot of People as being far-right.
        And I am a Nationalist – not a US-citizen – not living in the US.

        At the same time I’am not opposed of having international Relations.
        I’am full blown anti-Islam, since I am a former moderate convert who backed off when realizing the true nature of Islam.

        I do not agree with gay marriage or other Topics which are considered progressive.

        Still I would protect the gays politically and also with brute force if barbarians would assault them.

        I stand for freedom and for preserving western values more than anything – of course we can’t agree on all Topics, but this is not the issue here:

        The issue is, that we both Need to Team up in the fight against an arch Nemesis of European culture: Islam.

        And in my view we should do so first by speaking the truth – then by taking political Action such as Migration stops and Deportation of those who do not integrate and respect our Society or even work to bring it down.

        And – most important: Since this is a war, it should be regarded as such – however, this war is not against People – but against ideology.

        We Need to do what is necessary in order to protect our Society and at the same time help Muslims to get over their vile cult.

        Trust me – Islam does not know self-criticism at all. They do not question their own history – but grow up and are told directly and indirectly that their culture and Religion is superior to all others.

        We Need to start propagating the Advantages of secularism – pointing out to Europes violent wars between Christian sects of the past – and pointing towards the ongoing shia-sunni conflicts in the Islamic world – past and present.

        And we Need to seed doubts in their minds and hearts about their Prophet – for we all know, that he was a bloodthirsty, pedophile maniac.

        And it is all recorded in their sources.

        More than that – it is even recorded in islamic tenets, that Mohammed was chocked three times by Jibril – the “Angel” of Allah and that Mohammed afterwards was scared to death.

        Most Muslims will respond that the Claim that Mohammed was a pedophile is anti-Islam Propaganda – if you prove them wrong they will go silent.

        Trust me, the truth is a powerful weapon. But we are not going anywhere but to civil war when hate dominates our movement.

        • Rob says

          Dec 16, 2016 at 12:54 am

          Great reasoning – thanks

  2. Benedict says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    – And Maajid Nawaz suffers from the delusion, that if you treat a python with reproach it will respond by being cuddly.

    • Savvy Kafir says

      Dec 14, 2016 at 4:14 pm

      Maajid seems sincere; but he is wasting his time — and adding to the confusion. Islam cannot be “reformed” or tamed. The central theme of the Qur’an is hatred for non-Muslims. That cannot be fixed.

      • overman says

        Dec 14, 2016 at 5:02 pm

        lt’s like trying to ‘reform’ nazism.

        • Mirren10 says

          Dec 14, 2016 at 6:33 pm

          Let’s just be crude and say you can’t polish a turd. 🙂

  3. gretel says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    Great article. Thankyou.
    I have read some of their cowritten book and I have said this before; trying to sort or categorize muslims into various degrees of threat or badness is like sorting your dirty undies to see if any are fit for wearing. Some stink more, but none are ok.

  4. Savvy Kafir says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 4:08 pm

    As a left-wing counter-jihadi and Sam Harris fan, I was really disappointed by Sam’s support for Hillary Clinton. And his distancing of himself from Robert Spencer was another great disappointment. I know Sam has received a HUGE amount of hostility from his fellow liberals, because of his honesty regarding the threat posed by Islam; but I’m surprised that he has begun to make such bad decisions.

    I could not bring myself to vote for Trump, but I sure as hell wasn’t going to vote for Hillary, or suggest that anyone else should, as Sam did. And I would never say anything to undermine the credibility of a responsible, dedicated counter-jihadi like Robert Spencer.

    I’m still hoping Sam will find the strength to admit that he was wrong on those issues. He needs to make a clear stand with the counter-jihadis, and tell the PC Police to piss off, in no uncertain terms — the way he did in the past.

    You CAN be a progressive and a counter-jihadi; but you CAN’T be an effective counter-jihadi while giving a damn about what clueless, politically-correct liberals think of you.

    • eduardo odraude says

      Dec 14, 2016 at 4:26 pm

      I’m a Sam Harris fan too, but only of his statements about Islam. It’s unfortunate that he is apparently willing to throw someone like Robert Spencer under the bus in an effort to maintain some shreds of leftist bona fides. I guess the left is Harris’ main audience and his friends are largely leftish, and perhaps he feels he needs to trim his rhetoric and choices if he is to influence that audience with the Islam-critical message.

      • marsfeld says

        Dec 14, 2016 at 5:33 pm

        Yeah, that’s how I see it, too. People shouldn’t forget Harris and his work are very helpful in introducing a whole other demographic to the problem.

        Getting pinned down to persons too far off the “desirable” political spectrum of this specific audience in its current state of indoctrination would completely diminish this appeal right from the start, especially if this audience can be shamed immediately by, let’s say, pointing out “He’s hanging around with this guy. Did you know Theresa May didn’t even want to let him into Britain? That’s a Fox News guy, a fascist, extremist blah blah – and you’re listening to his best buddy.” They would use this “guilt by association” card immediately – and win, I’m afraid.

        I agree that this appears and feels like an obnoxious, somewhat cowardly dick move, from a viewpoint of the “justice” of things. And it is. But coldly and objectively considering the entire political and cultural situation of western societies and the oppression tactics of the media, it is all in all more helpful for Harris to continue his work AND his “shunning”. I think it’s too early to write him off. Even endorsing Hillary, as ridiculous as that may be from a counter jihad perspective, is good for his “liberal” credibility and the benefits of attracting that audience.

        Nobody can deny that the “Affleck-Gate” with Harris was something of a quantum leap in bringing counter jihadist knowledge to the mainstream of western societies.

        • eduardo odraude says

          Dec 14, 2016 at 5:49 pm

          Not sure Harris’ strategy — if that’s what it is — is justified on the basis you suggest. Yes, if he did not trim his message to avoid being shunned by the left entirely, he might become a pariah and lose all influence on the left. On the other hand, if every person on the left threw such PC concerns to the wind, perhaps things would change more quickly and soon the shunning would have to stop.

        • Savvy Kafir says

          Dec 14, 2016 at 6:12 pm

          I hear what you’re saying, Marsfeld; but I still think it’s better to simply be honest about all of it. Fearlessness is what’s needed among counter-jihadis — especially those of us on the political left, who may be tempted to hold back, in order to appeal to more of our fellow Lefties. In the end, boldness and truthfulness will prove to be more effective than subtlety, because the truth regarding Islam, and the threat it poses, are so compelling; and it just won’t be possible for the PC Police to hide that truth forever. Anyway, we don’t have time for subtlety.

          If I explain to my readers (or anyone else) that I’m a dedicated counter-jihadi AND an environmentalist, green energy enthusiast, vegetarian, animal rights advocate, religious skeptic, and a supporter of things like a national healthcare system and a higher minimum wage — and they accuse me of being a right-winger, then they’re idiots, and there’s just no reasoning with them.

          None of us should sell out on important issues, in order to curry the favor of idiots — regardless of where they are on the political spectrum.

        • gravenimage says

          Dec 14, 2016 at 6:26 pm

          True, Eduardo and Marsfeld.

        • marsfeld says

          Dec 14, 2016 at 7:36 pm

          @eduardo and Savvy Kafir

          True, but I’m not actually defending Harris’ shunning, besides – I don’t really know his motivations, I’m not inside his head. It might be pure cowardice, it might be strategy, he might have problems with Spencer’s approach to things in some way or the other etc. As I said, I don’t have a clue right now.

          I just tried to point out, even if we don’t like that Harris is acting this way, regarding the overall goal of gaining more widespread and mainstream attention for the issues of counter jihadism, it might just be good for that cause that there is no connection between them, as a kind of “division of labor” practice of informing the public can continue effectively.

        • Rob says

          Dec 15, 2016 at 5:51 pm

          “…Even endorsing Hillary, as ridiculous as that may be from a counter jihad perspective, is good for his “liberal” credibility…”

          Sam Harris did NOT endorse Hillary. He saw her (and this is one of the few cases where I disagree with Sam’s view) as the lesser of two evils.

          I’m OK with Trump, rather than four- or eight years of both Clintons again in the WhiteHouse; and I think we’ll all be pleasantly surprised as he moves through his term…

    • T Morgan says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 3:33 pm

      Harris didn’t distance or shun Spencer. The dude is barely on his radar. We are talking about two extremely different types of public figures. If you’ve been following, Harris doesn’t even want to be covering Islamic crap. It doesn’t interest him, but he knows it’s very important. Spencer’s entire identity is anti-Jihad and I think it’s given him a weird, corrupting tunnel vision. In the Spencer world, you’re either 100% on every point with him or you’re “collapsing”. It’s absolute nonsense. He’s just pissed that Harris didn’t ask him to be on the podcast. Or so I guess, because his protestations and silly paranoid conclusions here are totally unfounded. All Harris ever said about the guy was that he hadn’t taken the time to read all of his work, so he couldn’t fairly say how correct any smears about Spencer were. That’s it. We all agree the leftists slanders are terrible. That doesn’t mean Spencer should do *the exact same thing* to Harris.

      Look, outside of his mountain-out-of-a-molehill whinging about Harris, I don’t disagree with really anything Spencer says. But by being a stupid d*ck about Harris, he’s certainly turning plenty of otherwise receptive people off. Bad move. Most of Harris’ readers aren’t typically political (like him) and find rational argument appealing. All this article (and the adolescent commenting) does is present a kind of reactionary right-wing ‘Greenwalding’. Spencer looks dumb. You look dumb. It’s a mistake. Don’t do it.

      • Rob says

        Dec 15, 2016 at 5:42 pm

        To T Morgan: Well said…! It’s my reaction exactly.

      • gravenimage says

        Dec 15, 2016 at 9:14 pm

        With respect, I think you are way off base about Robert Spencer. The sad truth is that many leftists–even those who have occasionally spoken out against Jihad, like Bill Maher, have seldom been very consistent in their opposition to Jihad. I think this is all that Robert Spencer is really saying here.

        I know I would love* to see a real stand against Jihad savagery on the Left–but it has been disappointing at best, is often nonexistent, and is, all too often, actually enabling. I wish this were not so.

        • Rob says

          Dec 16, 2016 at 12:48 am

          “…I think you [T Morgan] are way off base about Robert Spencer…”

          Robert HAS been courageous; and is sending the right message – that’s why I am so disappointed, as I wrote below, in his dishonest message here about Sam’s “strong support” for Hillary. It is less than honest at best; and displays an unnecessary- and shameful sliming of someone whom he and all of us should be supporting.

          The “loony left” (as Mark Steyn describes them) have indeed been weirdly reluctant to report honestly about anything Islamic; and this is the most baffling thing for anyone with a normal set of human values.
          Obama’s refusal to ‘name the beast’ and European leaders’ incomprehensible policies regarding identifying the real problem (the new invitees simply have incompatible cultural norms) are just one aspect of what ails the West.
          Add to this the disgusting opportunism of Erdogan, the constant banging on about ‘Islamophobia is the problem’ by middle-east theocratic despots (and many disingenuous media people in the West) and the unrepentant stance of Merkel in the face of incontrovertible truth about how “non-multi” the latest concept of “multiculturalism” is; and you have a recipe for chaos.

          Organisations like CAIR in the US; and MCB in the UK have made astonishing gains against honest evaluation of what’s wrong; and the example shown to our youth by the “politically correct” reluctance to be honest about how and why Islam will be a perpetual problem, has stymied nearly all progress in this field.

          Who, seeing a “Muslim Protest” in any UK town, can explain how such conduct and real hate-speech can be tolerated, just because those screaming “UK – Go To Hell” and “British Soldiers – Burn In Hell” are Muslims, when people like Tommy Robinson has been so relentlessly vilified and pursued by the same police who turn a blind eye to open hatred by Muslims, of the country which feeds and houses them…? Anjem Choudary, given five years’ sentence, should have received thirty years’ incarceration for his fomenting of open violence. He’ll be out early; and go back to living off the country which gives him free housing and a generous allowance to boot… How nuts is that?

          Note that the day after the Orlando mass-murderer killed fifty-something gay men, Mark Zuckerberg took down Pamela Geller’s FaceBook Page, but left intact the murderer’s father’s one… This man – an open supporter of the Taliban, even as US soldiers try to eliminate them – describes his son as “not radical” at all; and “actually a nice boy”…, yet his voice is supported, while Ms Geller’s is silenced. This is how mad the world has become.

          And in the midst of this, Robert Spencer slimes Sam Harris; and is supported by many of his JihadWatch followers, who clearly are intellectual midgets compared to Sam; and who display nothing of the bravery and clear honesty Sam does.

          When the UN – now run by the Islamists – can propose a ban on “criticism of religion” (and we all know where this will go) and not get a strong message from Western Democracies: “Stop That Right Now, Or Do Without Our Aid”, what hope is there that things are getting better for the world?

          …so now it’s the right-wing crackpots who have the situation properly – if dishonestly – summed up… Islam Must GO…
          And they’re right, even though it’s for many of the wrong reasons.

          Right now, everyone opposing barbarism should be on the same page, yet this is not happening; and the reason for this is the creeping dishonesty of remarks about Sam Harris’ intentions and about his message to the world.

          What’s urgently needed here is Intellectual Honesty.
          Robert; and some of his supporters have strayed, in this article, from an honest narrative.

          It’s up to Robert to get back on track.
          Let’s see how- and whether he does this.

      • Mirren10 says

        Dec 19, 2016 at 5:49 pm

        Why do leftards assume people are unable to google ? 🙂

        There’s plenty more where that came from.

        Harris is 80% wanker, and like every leftard twists and turns like a pretzel.

  5. eduardo odraude says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    I would not be that surprised if in the secrecy of the voting booth, Harris voted for Trump. Pressure on the left not to vote for Trump was much stronger than pressure on the right not to vote for Clinton. Seems many on the left would disown friends and relatives for admitting support for Trump. So the polls missed what was going on because a lot of Trumpers were hiding their support.

  6. KrazyKafir says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 4:16 pm

    No courage or conviction. A leftist with real courage and conviction would be, Oriana Fallaci.

    • JB says

      Dec 14, 2016 at 4:45 pm

      I’d like to see you or any of the other simple minded critics here have the courage he does as a public figure. It’s easy to do it on a safe format such as this because you’ll never be in any real danger. Say what you will, but a coward he most certainly is not.

      • KrazyKafir says

        Dec 14, 2016 at 7:03 pm

        I don’t see Robert, or Pamela, or a multitude of other anti-Jihadists caving in. Courage would be to not cave in.

        • JB says

          Dec 14, 2016 at 11:59 pm

          If you call what he’s doing “caving” then you failed to listen to him objectively.

      • KrazyKafir says

        Dec 15, 2016 at 10:31 am

        Anyone who attacks far more courageous anti-Jihad freedom fighters, and supports the Muslim Brotherhood stealth Jihadist Ellison is worse than a carver. He’s now a quisling dhimmi tool.

  7. miriamrove says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 4:24 pm

    The left is the right hand man for Muslims and Islam. m

  8. Diane Harvey says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    The Left – always wrong, but never in doubt.

    • JB says

      Dec 14, 2016 at 4:47 pm

      How objective of you.

    • Mirren10 says

      Dec 14, 2016 at 6:40 pm

      ”How objective of you.”

      Can you give one example of when the Left was right ? 🙂

      • JB says

        Dec 14, 2016 at 11:54 pm

        I could have a nearly identical conversation with the liberal version of you and it would be equally pointless. Any example I give you, no matter how beyond reproach it may be I promise you, youre incapable of seeing it’s validity. You tribalists are a dime a dozen. I’m sure you’re a very intelligent person, you’re just cheating yourself out of a much more well thought out intellectual process by only really looking at an issue from one side.

        BTW- What the hell is going on with the spell check on this

        • Mirren10 says

          Dec 19, 2016 at 6:44 pm

          Why is it leftards never have a sense of humour ? 🙂

  9. gravenimage says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    Sam Harris and the collapse of the counter-jihad Left
    ………………………..

    Every sane Westerner–whatever their politics–should be counter-jihad, but so many on the Left are not. Given how anti-Liberal Islam is, this is insane.

    I am Liberal in many of my views–but like all other Anti-Jihadists, I am regularly characterized as “hard right” for being against Islam oppressing and murdering us.

    • Allan says

      Dec 14, 2016 at 6:59 pm

      You are correct that it would be insane for a leftist not to be averse to Islam, but let’s bear in mind something important about leftist politics. It’s inherently hostile to private property, independence, freedom of thought, and so on. In short, leftist politics is inherently totalitarian, and like Islam it has an inordinate fondness for deception, too. Hence the use of “liberal” by some leftist busybodies to describe theirselves. So I am not much surprised when leftists shout “Islamophobe” or are encountered, as I did one day last March in Chicago, protesting side-by-side with Muslims.

      Now, I think we should be wary of writing off all leftists as insane for failing to express PUBLICLY a hostility to Islam and its jihad. Many leftists are just sentimental dupes, but the self-aware materialists of leftism are thoroughly opposed to theism. So we should not doubt their hope for a world without Islamic theocracy. But they have an immediate practical problem of winning enough support to advance their secular agenda through elections or revolution. So they are motivated to find new allies in their long war against all liberty. The Muslims are a tremendous pool of warm bodies from whom to recruit support, and it’s a helpful coincidence also that most Muslims are not white.

      Probably you know most or all of this already, but let’s think about the leftist leaders’ predicament. How are they to cultivate the apostasy of millions of Muslims without upsetting their unstable political coalition? I don’t think that leftist leaders have figured out how to square that circle, and this situation is very stressful for them. The stress begs for an outlet, and leftists find that outlet, in part, by abusing people who criticize Islam. What I’m saying is that their abusiveness towards critics is partly therapeutic. If some day, however, a critical mass of leftists publicly condemns Islam, we see a great shift of the leaders’ rhetoric. Their hand will be forced. So they’ll denounce Islam as “conservative” with near unanimity among them and renew their traditional attacks upon all theism, Islamic included. Then they’ll discover that there are two types of critics of Islam. The first will be thoughtful, nuanced, and (surprise!) usu. leftist, and the rest will be irrational, emotional, and uninformed.

      • Mirren10 says

        Dec 14, 2016 at 7:36 pm

        ”So they are motivated to find new allies in their long war against all liberty. The Muslims are a tremendous pool of warm bodies from whom to recruit support, and it’s a helpful coincidence also that most Muslims are not white. ”

        Well, you know what they say about supping with the devil.

        Personally, I very much doubt the Left is motivated by any of the altruistic motives you’re suggesting. I think they love totalitarianism because they love power; especially over us chavs. There’s also the little busybody jobsworth motives for those who don’t make it to the top echelon.

      • gravenimage says

        Dec 15, 2016 at 11:01 pm

        Allan wrote:

        You are correct that it would be insane for a leftist not to be averse to Islam, but let’s bear in mind something important about leftist politics. It’s inherently hostile to private property, independence, freedom of thought, and so on. In short, leftist politics is inherently totalitarian
        …………………..

        Allan, I think you are looking at the hard Left–certainly, no actual Liberal is as you describe.

    • JB says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 12:09 am

      I couldn’t agreel more. It’s hilarious how once the issue turns to the true definition of jihad, I’m immediately transformed into a racist in the minds of those around me. Of course it goes without saying that none of them have ever read any real Islamic texts.

      • gravenimage says

        Dec 15, 2016 at 11:02 pm

        True, JB.

  10. overman says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 5:38 pm

    Agree with every word Robert says here. Harris always seems weak and lacking in conviction. His ‘moral ambivalence’ and hypocrisy in support of clinton, is deplorable.
    l’ve noticed another atheist who loudly condemns ‘lslam’ in his youtube videos [more than harris does], but then comes out vociferously supporting Clinton. He also greatly admires Harris [the main video on his Channel is Harris discussing religion]. This guy is called ‘Atheism-is-unstoppable’. l can’t fathom the logic of these ppl – his excuse is that because he’s always voted Demorat, he’s not changing now. So, even with the psychopathy of someone like Clinton, he’s still has a duty vote for her, give me a break lol – where is there conscience.
    Trump is obviously the better of two evils. He’s probably a Globalist puppet as william engdahl says [yes he appears to oppose them, but be careful with the fine words], who’s needed to keep russia friendly [and to keep them away from china – america couldn’t cope with those two on the warpath]. Anyway, Trump might help with the muslim crisis – she would have destroyed america..

    • Ballantine1979 says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 3:16 pm

      “Agree with every word Robert says here.”

      Not every word. I can’t agree with his matter-of-factly describing Maajid Nawaz as a “Muslim reformer”. At the very least he could have put sneer quotes around “reformer” or said “pseudo-reformer” or “self-professed reformer”.

      • Rob says

        Dec 16, 2016 at 1:20 am

        About Majid: “…At the very least he could have put sneer quotes around “reformer” or said “pseudo-reformer” or “self-professed reformer”…’

        As Hitchens once said: “There you have it, Ladies and Gentlemen – you can see how far the termites have spread; and how long- and well they’ve dined…”

        Try to listen to what Majid says – read his works; and look at what he’s achieving, then put away your sneering and try to sit with the adults for a while. You might grow up some day, rather than hide out with the pretend-journalists as Salon. In fact, you seem to fit the profile of Omer Aziz.

  11. cs says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 6:00 pm

    I will have to give a pass to Harris, Hitchens and Maher. I think Harris is very arrogant, but he gets things right now and then, the guy has been and enormous pressure since he denounced Islam. Prof Richard Dawkins also suffered all kinds of attack, it has been a tremendous institutional pressure on these people, so I will have some degree of support for them.

    • Allan Mandrowski says

      Dec 14, 2016 at 7:10 pm

      The pressure they face from their “own audience” regarding their completely logical stance on islam is enormous. At least on the right you are in good company and have support.

      “Coming out” on the left as someone who denounces Islam for what it truly is, is akin to career suicide.

  12. Allan Mandrowski says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 7:08 pm

    I am another progressive who is hardcore anti-Islam. It’s interesting how simply acknowledging that Islam poses a threat to Western way of life and society makes one instantaneously a right winger in the eyes of those PC lefties.

    I stand for many progressive ideas, such as; healthcare for everyone, tackling student debt, increasing the social safety net and the likes, but at the same time I stand for a stop on immigration and I stand for freedom of drawing cartoons about any – thus including Muslim – prophet and anything you want.

    What does this make me? I am hyper left for the right and I’m hyper right for the left.

    • maghan says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 8:13 am

      Perhaps the archetype rightist for Liberals would be Hitler. So what was the German health care system during his time? Leftists support illegal–i.e. without visas, etc.– migrations but rarely attack the feudal oligarchies and kleptocracies from which the illegals flee. If the leftists were not total hypocrites they would tell the illegals to go back to their countries and fight the oligarchic governments there. But they don’t.

    • eduardo odraude says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 3:11 pm

      Mandrowski, many, many more people like you are needed. Personally, I don’t care if someone is conservative or liberal — if your house is burning down do you care what color the curtains are going to be next year? I know the differences are not that trivial. But to me, the differences between those who believe in a multi-party democracy on the one hand and on the other hand those really bent on imposing totalitarianism — those are the only differences that really matter. The most important thing perhaps is that liberals and conservatives can come together on resisting totalitarian Islam. The House Divided may burn down.

      I don’t agree with you politically — and my views don’t fit into left or right programs — I see flaws and virtues in both sides. On the one hand, I think the state’s only task in relation to the economy is to impose law, to regulate and deregulate, but not to take over and run the economy in the sense of state socialism — but on the other hand, I think people in the private economy would do well to run it much more cooperatively, in a voluntary sense, for example through benefit corporations or private cooperatives like Mondragon. On the one hand I don’t think the state should be involved in education — but at the same time I think all families, not just those with economic resources, must have access to the educational freedom to choose from the great variety of forms of education that would result from a greater separation of school and state.

      • Allan Mandrowski says

        Dec 20, 2016 at 6:43 pm

        Interestingly, I think at the core of it, we want the same thing. Just our approach to getting there is different. However, I agree with you that on the issue of Islam we must stand united. Islam, after all, threatens the way of life of anyone – whether you are right or left.

        Therefore, I think that progressives and conservatives should sometimes put their political differences aside and focus on that what connects them. Granted, there is far more resistance on the right to the threat of Islam, but like myself, I know more progressives who share my views regarding the existential threat which Islam poses to all of us and thus we want to stop Islam.

  13. Wellington says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 7:14 pm

    A Leftist is very much like a Muslim, to wit, that they can never really comprehend truth UNLESS they cease being who they are.

    Remain a Leftist or a Muslim? Then only the degree of darkness where your capacity for comprehending the truth is a variable. No exceptions. Not even one. As illustrated here.

    • Lawrence says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 2:46 pm

      Well said. I have come to the conclusion that there is no decent Left. Impossible given what Leftism is, the moral and cultural relativism at its core. Same with Alan Dershowitz and Ron Rosenbaum who profess to be decent pro-Israel Lefties, but gave their support for Obama in spite of all the warning signs. Idiot identity politics got the better of them. One has to leave the Left completely. One cannot be a decent Lefty. It is as fundamental as physical laws. I have known for an age that Harris could not be taken seriously. His previous know-nothing commentary on odious left-wing fascists such as Greenwald and Chomsky revealed what a chump he was. So this latest revelation does not surprise.

  14. underbed cat says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 7:17 pm

    Maybe Sam has never heard about the HLF trial, the evidence of the infiltration of the political MB that funds and supports jihad (not a personal struggle), unless it is a struggle to fight, knows less about the Reliance of the Traveler sharia laws, The many documents that would show that refugees are required to migrate, to decieive and to establish sharia wherever they land and the dangers of the migration called hijra, the many like minded who have moved into positions of power and can control the message. Does he know about the OIC, the purge of the adjectives from the 9/11 Commission Report, the purge at the agency that is suppose to protect Americans.etc etc. etc. or he just wants to be a good democrat and pretend “on problem” and supports inflitration that has a end result of inflitration that will get dangerous.

    • eduardo odraude says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 3:17 pm

      One wonders exactly what he knows, of course, but if you listen to his podcasts about Islam, it is clear that he knows a great deal about how horrible Islam is and the danger it represents to the West.

  15. underbed cat says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 7:18 pm

    opps “no problem”

  16. Anke L. says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 7:33 pm

    I think the judgement of Harris is a little too harsh.Harris is a brain Neurologist and a Philosopher.
    He raises deep questions about the works of the brain, to which he or we do not always have straight answers. Just because Trump promised to step against Islam, does simply not give enough ground to vote for him. I was pleased about Trumps attitude when it comes to that, but I still did not vote for him. Also I think Harris prefers not to live with constant death threats over his head, like Mr. Spencer and Geert Wilders in Holland or Pamela Geller.do.. He has a young family to think of.
    Through Sam H. I actually became aware of the inner workings of Islam. Through Harris I hooked on
    to all the books by Mr. Spencer. I hate Islam.. Ideology and try to educate my friends about its hidden dangers for our Western World…We all can do something on our own level, and so is Sam Harris.

    • Mac-101 says

      Dec 14, 2016 at 9:38 pm

      By NOT voting for Trump you basically empowered Clinton. Thankfully enough people swallowed their reservations about Trump and voted for him to overcome the massive voter fraud that the Democrats executed. A vote for the Donkey or Rino is a vote for the Islamification of Western Civilization and the destruction/eradication of ALL that Libs hold dear.

  17. davej says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    Most people don’t seem to realize that, officially, if you are a non-Muslim then Islam wants to kill you. No need to draw a cartoon or post a critical comment, you are on the murder list just for existing and that includes atheists. So the Leftists might want to consider that fact because appeasing or excusing them will have the same effect – nothing.

    So you might as well be honest and fight them to the death.

    • maghan says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 8:21 am

      But the hypocritical and not-too-bright Liberals always say –“but there are peaceful Muslims who are good citizens” without realizing that anyone who adheres to Islam MUST embrace its ideology. That ideology states that “infidels must be sought out and killed–preferably by beheading”. Islam also embraces slavery and the rape of female war-captives. A Muslim necessarily must embrace all of the Qur’an as the word of Allah and MUST see Muhammad as “the most perfect man that ever lived and ever will live”–despite his murders, banditry and rape of a 9 year old child.

  18. Vikram Chatterjee says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 8:26 pm

    Maajid Nawaz was long ago exposed by myself at GatesOfVienna.net

    Anyone interested can go there and read my articles, and watch my 10 min video in which I show how Maajid deployed Quran 59:2 to threaten a London synagogue.

    Anyone foolish enough to think he is peaceful should take the time to absorb the following links:

    How Maajid Nawaz threatened the audience at a London synagogue https://youtu.be/QS30IWoChAo

    Maajid Nawaz: Stealth Jihadist Exposed https://vkchatterjee.wordpress.com/2015/12/30/maajid-nawaz-stealth-jihadist-exposed/

    Sinister and Dangerous: The Stealth Supremacism of Maajid Nawaz https://vkchatterjee.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/sinister-and-dangerous-the-stealth-supremacism-of-maajid-nawaz/

    ────────

    Nawaz’s group, Quilliam Foundation, if a front for the Sunni supremacist movement Hizb ut-Tahrir. It is named after Abdullah Quilliam, a pious and fanatical Sunni Muslim who converted to Islam in the Edwardian era, and founded England’s first mosque. Quilliam called for Sharia law in Britain and a global caliphate to rule the world.

    That’s who his “counter-extremism think tank is named after”. It’s as if a German nationalist claimed to be an ex-Nazi and founded a Joseph Goebbels Center for Aryan-Jewish Understanding.

    By naming his organization after this man, Nawaz signals in dog-whistle fashion to the Muslims in the audience that he remains loyal to Sharia and the caliphate, aka ISIS.

    http://www.andrewbostom.org/2015/12/reformer-maajid-nawaz-and-wm-abdallah-quilliam-caliphate-supporting-namesake-for-nawazs-reformist-organization/

    • ECAW says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 5:20 am

      Thanks for all that, Vikram. I am also suspicious about Quilliam, partly because of it being named after an early British convert who would definitely qualify for terms like Islamist, Radical and Supremacist today. But also because of the slippery language of both Nawaz and his colleague Usama Hasan. Here is Hasan engaging in free-range sleight of hand, courtesy of the ever willing BBC:

      https://ecawblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/examining-quilliams-claims-4/

  19. mortimer says

    Dec 14, 2016 at 9:16 pm

    Sam Harris has chickened out.

    • E Wood says

      Dec 14, 2016 at 11:38 pm

      After listening to quite a bit of Sam Harris, I would not count him out yet. Yes, I’m disappointed that such a rigorous rationalist should shy away of someone who is “stigmatized” without having one fact to back up his position, but I’m still holding out hope for him. He’s been a warrior in the past, and he may get his second wind. Personally, I think he’s far more afraid of seeming to align himself with Trump than Spencer. What if by odd chance he and Trump are of similar opinion about the threat of Islam to western culture? Disaster! He’s slowly backing away, and using Spencer as cover, but discretion may prove the better part of valor for the time being. Let’s keep an eye on him.

    • Westman says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 2:47 am

      Yes. He said he was going to take a “time out” and it turned into retirement. I think Harris realized that if he remained on the same track as Spencer, Geller, and Wilders that he would soon need a security detail.

      That is the reality of Islam – it cannot be reformed unless those within and without are willing to put their lives at risk in such numbers that those benefiting from controlling the umma cannot reverse it.

      • Lawrence says

        Dec 15, 2016 at 2:59 pm

        The thing is, as you point out, even if you don’t say boo on Islam, you are a target. In fact even if you are a Muslim, you are a target. You are always a heretic to one group or another. I live in Tel Aviv and even the self -hating liberals are as much a target of the Jihad as I am. I remember the city municipality blocking access to jihadwatch.org via the free city Wifi service. But didn’t protect us from Hamas rockets anyhow back in 2014. Shocka.

        • eduardo odraude says

          Dec 15, 2016 at 3:25 pm

          Not exactly. You are saying we are all targets as much as Spencer? No way! Spencer gets death threats daily. He must have security when he travels. You and I don’t face that daily. Geert Wilders has had to live in prisons and safe houses for years, and has had no privacy for years. If there were thousands of Geert Wilders and Robert Spencers, people who prefer to stand for truth and die rather than lie and live, then maybe Spencer and Wilders would no longer need security.

  20. Gordon Miller says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 4:00 am

    Despite being so much older than Sam Harris that I could be his father and indeed have a son who is older, I considered him to be a mentor, having read two of his books, following him avidly through his speeches, debates, etc.
    While I did know him to be very left—he announced this fact during one presentation—I didn’t hold that against him because he never reminded his audiences of this failed view either directly or by innuendo.
    Unfortunately, my admiration of Dr. Harris was dashed when he devoted a podcast to denounce president-elect Trump in a manner which was almost shocking to me. It all just spilled out. His virulent criticism was all too reminiscent of the liberal party line. Of course, he spoke it more eloquently than most leftists, but if you analyzed his remarks, they basically focused on Mr. Trump’s style of speaking, in essence, that of a lower middle class, uneducated, New Yorker.
    Admittedly, I too used to cringe when Mr. Trump spoke. The terrible syntax, sentence fragments, repetitions, etc., made me think: Can we tolerate this man as our president and leader of the free world?
    Hell no. (For god’s sake, someone hand him a thesaurus, at least.)
    Let me end this prolixity, by saying that one would have thought that Dr Harris would have reflected a bit, as a growing number of us have, that in substance our soon-to-be president (not soon enough) was speaking quite intelligently and yes, taking an approach that was a winning formula. I am disappointed that the brilliant Dr. Harris could be so hugely wrong.
    ( And the last time I looked, New York was a great city and located in the United States.)

    • maghan says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 8:43 am

      But the darling of the liberals, Obama, was an irritating speaker. Huh, huh, huh, haltingly interspersed with just incoherent nonsense and lies. Same with Kissinger. He was touted as some kind of genius but he spoke haltingly about nothing with consequences. Bush II sounded like a near illiterate but had his followers. Bill Clinton spike smoothly but it was all smoke and mirrors.

      Rule: judge a man by his not by his words. Remember: words are cheap and are are often used to seduce and mislead.

  21. Al says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 6:25 am

    “he came out strongly for Hillary Clinton” is either a lie or clear evidence that this author has paid no attention to what Harris actually says.

    • Know Thy Enemy says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 2:21 pm

      Al, the quote that you picked is a red herring. I regularly received Harris’ tweets until a few weeks ago when I un-followed him. Sam came out strongly for voting for Hillary Clinton, and you know he did.

      The fact that he wanted Hillary to become POTUS shows lack of judgement. Why in the world would one want a Muslim-pandering politician (and Party) who is in cahoots with Islamists, to win? Democratic Party winning means sooner or later Islamists win, which means that sooner or later there will be a sword ready to take Sam Harris’s neck off (for being Jewish and Atheist).

      One does not have to be a neuroscientist to realize what I just wrote, and I bet Sam knows this too. The reason why he advocated voting for Hillary is because he is a coward who NEEDS the Left’s protection, as Robert has explained in the article, and is the gist of the article.

      • Mirren10 says

        Dec 19, 2016 at 6:09 pm

        Hear, hear !

  22. Angemon says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 6:38 am

    Counter-jihad left? There’s no such thing. There are individuals on the left who genuinely oppose jihad terror, that much is true. But, generally speaking, the party line of those on the left is that any inquiry into if/how islamic teaching are related to islamic terrorism is the same as being bigoted against individual muslims. And that allows useful idiots to nurture an grow their personal saviour complex, giving themselves an unwarranted sense of moral superiority, by shutting/shouting down anyone trying to have an open, honest discussion on the issue and patting themselves on the back for opposing “hateful” “bigotry”.

    Sam Harris is the perfect encapsulation of this. He didn’t try to have an open, honest discussion, going “well, these are the facts, I’m open to suggestions on what we should do now”. He, instead, tried to offer a solution he found palatable: work with an “ex”-“radical” to “reform” islam. From what I’ve seen of him, the idea that islam may be beyond reform was never on the table. With the acumen of a businessman, he found a “problem” and offered a “solution” to an eager audience. The audience, however, rejected his “solution” and considered him part of the problem, so it’s time to get some “street cred” back – “I’m with her”.

    Frankly, I believe that Sam “The Hack” Harris would never, ever have risen to prominence were he born in any given European country. He rose to prominence by jumping on the “hi, I’m an atheist so I criticize Christianity, even though I have no idea of what I’m talking about” bandwagon. In a country without firebrand televangelists asking for donations to get a new pool or private jet, or without groups pushing to teach Creationism in schools, Sam Harris would have had nothing to rail against and he might have had a long, successful career in neuroscience.

    • Tony says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 8:01 am

      “Frankly, I believe that Sam “The Hack” Harris would never, ever have risen to prominence were he born in any given European country. He rose to prominence by jumping on the “hi, I’m an atheist so I criticize Christianity, even though I have no idea of what I’m talking about” bandwagon.”

      Very well put. Sam Harris is little more than a snob who looks down on Christians. I have read Harris’s “Letter to a Christian Nation” and found his thinking to be way overrated. I recall how he compares homicide rates between the U.S. and Norway to discredit the role of Christianity in creating a good society. This is junk science because the ethnographics of these nations differ radically from each other. I also remember how he faltered in a telephone debate with Dennis Prager when pressed to use reason alone to justify the immorality of murder, then he followed up by posting a cartoon on his blog to imply that he “won” the debate. Harris lives in a bubble that is so thick that he is totally incapable of appreciating the role of Judeo-Christian values in giving him the prosperity that financed his study of neuroscience and the freedom that allows him to spout is sophistry.

      • Rob says

        Dec 15, 2016 at 1:39 pm

        People with opinions and ignorant comments like yours are as much part of the problem as the hate-speech enforcers.

        Calling Sam Harris a snob for being honest about what Christianity represents shows that you’ve been indoctrinated to the same extent as the dogmatic followers of Islam’s tenets.

        That you’re unable to see the similarity of the two religions’ disgusting tactics (remember the Inquisition?) displays your own self-justified bigotry.

        Sam Harris is an “equal opportunity” critic of religious idiocy whose fluency and well-reasoned on-the-button highlighting of the stupidity of all “faith” has struck exactly the right, painful note; and you’re committing the same error as the Islamist you so despise.

        • eduardo odraude says

          Dec 15, 2016 at 3:42 pm

          Rob,
          Do you realize that Sam Harris does not treat Islam and Christianity as morally equivalent? They are both tissues of lies, as far as he is concerned, but Islam is by far the more dangerous.

          Even if all religions are a pure tissue of fantasy, as you seem to believe, different religions have very different social outcomes. Historian Stephen Morillo, who is neither a Jew nor a Christian, says that constitutional societies evolved in Europe in part because the Bible conceives of God relating to human beings through covenants — contracts. One should also recognize the following massive difference between Christianity and Islam: the central figure of the New Testament is reputed to have said to “give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, to God the things that are God’s,” and also “My kingdom is not of this world,” and these and similar statements led gradually to the separation of religion and state. By contrast, the prime exemplar for Muslims, Muhammad, became Caesar, the ruler of an expansionist totalitarian system with global ambitions. To be fully Islamic means to set up an aggressive totalitarian theocracy.

          One could point out other key differences between Christianity and Islam — as the great historian Daniel Boorstin pointed out, Allah emphasizes command over creativity — whereas the Judeo-Christian God emphasized the work of creation over command, and told human beings to imitate that creativity — to begin with, “to be fruitful and multiply.” As Boorstin points out, in Islam, human beings are not conceived as God’s children, but only as his servants or slaves. Thus in Islam, Boorstin writes, for a human being to create is considered a “rash and dangerous act.”

          So it is a mistake to act as though all religions are equivalent. Whether they are fantasy or not, they lead to very different social outcomes. Christianity is compatible with constitutional democratic societies. Islam is largely incompatible with democracy and freedom.

        • Rob says

          Dec 15, 2016 at 5:39 pm

          Eduardo – yes of course I realise this; and I don’t state that they’re all equivalent. Islam is by far the more dangerous, but I was responding to Tony’s implication that Christianity is on the side of the angels; and that Sam’s reasoning is wrong (I specifically referred to the inquisition times).

          The level of confident denigration of Harris’ intellect by many on this forum, who demonstrably (through their reasoning) fall way short of his level, is irritating; and as I wrote to Robert Spencer (below) this diminishes the power of JihadWatch, which is such an important movement, yet it’s being diminished through such arrogant derision of Sam’s views.

          Even Robert himself has taken this route, to his own detraction. Claiming Sam’s “strong support” for Hillary is simply an egregious and false claim – and a knowing falsehood, for which Robert and others on this list should apologise.

          Sam’s clear reasoning has done more to demonstrate to the public, Islam’s utter idiocy, than anything which Robert has written.
          I’ve admired Robert for some time; and I support what he’s attempting to do, as one of the most important fora around, but deliberate falsehoods against anyone – especially against Sam – disappoint- and irritate me and many who hold similar opinions about how the scourge should be dealt with in order to eliminate it for good…

    • underbed cat says

      Dec 15, 2016 at 10:17 am

      If Sam lived in Europe, and made his comments, he would be silenced by hate speech laws, the type of laws that sharia demands once they settle in a secular country. The type of person who researches ideas or the doctrine of Islam would be threatened and most likely arrested for hate speech crimes. He can only do this in countries with free speech laws and fewer muslims( and political infiltration) which could take offense. With the migration/ refugee commands written as a obligation of muslims to spread the doctrine, and a muslim administration…..threats of legalizing crimminal charges for “hate or truthful speech about islam it may be his neural cells alerted him of a danger. Ding Ding Ding

      Wigging out is a new disorder.

    • Mirren10 says

      Dec 19, 2016 at 6:12 pm

      Well said, Angemon.

      The chronic dishonesty of the Left revolts me.

  23. duh swami says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 7:27 am

    Knowledge, experience and understanding equals wisdom…
    If you have those, you understand Islam, if you don’t have them, you mist be a HRC supporting liberal…

  24. kinley says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 8:36 am

    During the 1950-70s leftists would rave “How could the Germans, the most advanced and sophisticated people of Europe, allow Hilter into power, despite Hitler’s lies, militant rhetoric, and persecutions of and attacks on Jews, gypsies, Slavs, and others? Why did the people of Europe and the US permit this to happen?” Then they would say “Hitler’s rise was caused by conservatives and the political right. If I had been there, Hilter and the Nazis would never have risen to power! I would not have been fooled by their lies and rhetoric, and I would have actively opposed their criminal activity. The Germans should have done as I would have done!”

    These were the young liberals and leftists. Fast forward to the present and the actions of these same people tell you WHY Hilter rose to power. Instead of opposing the rise of evil, they abet it.

  25. V R Balest says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 8:56 am

    Simply put, I wish Sam had held his ground in this debate. I am hoping that he may reconsider his caving on the issue.

  26. Anke L. says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 10:02 am

    to Mac 1o1

    When I said that I did not vote for Trump, does not automatically mean,that
    I voted for Hillary.
    Your Logic is off.

  27. Anke L. says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 10:05 am

    to Al..
    Yes AL you are right the author of this article has really not heard, what Harris actually
    said about Clinton.

  28. Rob says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    “…And so during the late presidential campaign, he came out strongly for Hillary Clinton…”

    No, Robert – please don’t do this.
    You’re now doing what Reza Aslan and Greenwald do – making a deliberately exaggerated claim that you MUST know is untrue, if you’ve followed any of Sam’s many statements on the Trump/Clinton “lose/lose” option…

    Sam’s critique of Trump’s “loose cannon” nature is justified, given the many weird or outrageous statements which Trump has made during this over-long campaign. He has stated how unsavoury BOTH Clintons are so many times that you can’t have missed it, to the point where he’s used terms about her putrescent nature, saying that it’s “sad”, but that many who can’t abide Hillary, but who’ve witnessed the “Trump Insanity”, would likely “hold their noses” and vote for her, rather than endorse the Donald…

    With tactics like this: “…came out STRONGLY for Clinton”, you’re risking losing the many honest followers you’ve gained, despite the honourable reputation you’ve built over the years.

    Once again – please don’t take this dishonest track, which places you firmly in the league of Greenwald.
    You’ll undermine what you’ve achieved; and as you’ve just done with me, you’ll disenchant the younger followers who so despise commenters like Aslan and the despicable Salon clan.

    Show your honest, adult side. Apologise to your readers and followers right now; and stay away from tactics which poison your important message…

  29. Corey W. Smith says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    One of the many ironies here is that Trump has now publicly admitted that his threats to jail Clinton were nothing but empty campaign slogans.

    • Rob says

      Dec 17, 2016 at 1:19 am

      “…his threats to jail Clinton were nothing but empty campaign slogans…”

      He’s done no such thing; and anyway, it’s not the president’s place to “go after” any criminal acts – they is the DOJ’s jurisdiction; and I’ve little doubt it will happen.

      I think we should wait until he’s in the driving seat before criticising. His performance in setting up his cabinet has been as surprising (in his choices) as it’s been fast, so if this is anything to go by, I believe he’s on a good (if unpredictable) path.

  30. Jan D'haene says

    Dec 15, 2016 at 11:59 pm

    Rather than focusing on Islam as being conservative, we must not forget that it grabbed power from the Byzantine and Sassanid empire after they had exhausted fighting each other and suffering a plaque that decimated over one third of their populations. Islam is thus in a way the successor of these ancient civilizations and has been stuck in the classical era ever since. Our laws and culture are no match to confront this onslaught of pre-medieval Islam and can only be stopped by changing our laws to confront this threat in order to save Western Civilization.

  31. King Dave says

    Dec 16, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    Sam Harris is one of the best critiques of Islam there is. How he votes is irrelevant and off topic. It is however noticeable that criticism of Islam is a career killer and excusable to pull back, which Harris has not done at all. It seems to criticize Harris about his views on Islam is to side with leftists like Greenwald and Aslan. Don’t do that.

  32. underbed cat says

    Dec 17, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    The words” lesser of two evils sticks in my mind.” Hilliary did not speak truthfully about the roots of islamic jihad,her concern appeared as a erudite understanding of islam. The problems that manifested with keeping silent, in an attempt to keep a lid on hostility by obeying sharia law of slander, created a open space in which the islamic dawa was able to mist into the minds that Islam has a tolerant future and we owe it to the people who live under it.

    So Harris and Hillary may think that 1400 years of Islam and muslims who call themselves such, that read the Quran should be spared averse events…. the doctrine does not allow any changes, and best criiques did not prevent mass slaughter, massive migratiion such as in Europe where they also wanted a good ending and now Sweden is preparing for war, and the entanglements grew so horrific that none of us might survive….I think some rude speech was in order as a candidate to plow through the silver tongues of enertia and bad decisions. They are far to clever and predatory to underestimate.

  33. underbed cat says

    Dec 17, 2016 at 1:42 pm

    too clever.

  34. Know Thy Enemy says

    Dec 17, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Slightly prior to when Mr. Spencer posted this article, I had come up with my own theory regarding why the Left’s anti-jihadists (Sam Harris, Ali Rizvi, Nice Mangoes, Maajid Nawaz, etc) behave the way they do, and why they refuse to join hands with Robert. I came up with this theory after observing the Left for [more than a year by now], and reading their tweets, what they say, what they do, etc.

    Their hostility towards Robert has to do with the facts that 1) he is Christian, and 2) the audience at jihadwatch is mostly Christian, or pro-Judeo-Christian, or have a right-wing bent to them.

    First, where did this hostile attitude towards Christians come from? Answer: The liberals have been dissing Christianity for quite a while, and one of the top liberals boiled it down to this-

    Christopher Hitchens, who died 5 years ago:
    “Now, I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religion, and organized religion. Absolutely convinced of that.
    And I think it should be––religion––treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt.
    And I claim that right.
    So when I say… religion poisons everything, I’m not just doing what publishers like and coming up with a provocative subtitle.
    I mean to say it infects us in our most basic integrity. It says we can’t be moral without ‘Big Brother,’ without a totalitarian permission. It means we can’t be good to one another without this, [that] we must be afraid…
    We must also be forced to love someone whom we fear––the essence of sadomasochism, the essence of abjection, the essence of the master-slave relationship… And that knows that death is coming, and can’t wait to bring it on.
    I say that is evil.
    ”

    In the above quote, Christopher shows hatred for all religion, however, in practice the western liberals have focused their hatred primarily on Christianity (and this should be obvious from reading many of the liberals’ comments right here in this thread).

    Just as Muslims’ hostility towards Jews is rooted in Islam’s attitude of hatred towards Jews, the liberals’ hostility towards [Christianity in particular] is rooted in the above quote by Hitchens. [Note: Hitchens is not the one who started hatred towards Christianity. The hatred was already there among liberals. Hitchens simply penned it down in a nice, concise quote.]

    A few things happen as a result of liberals holding the above mentioned belief towards Christianity:

    1) They end up with a us versus them mentality towards Christians. They are liberals, you are Christian. They see you as competitors. No way will they join hands with Christians unless doing so advances their own agendas.

    2) They don’t simply see you as competitors. They see you as enemies to be eliminated. This explains why they turn a blind eye to the genocide happening against Christians in the Middle East and Africa. I remember a few years ago when churches in Nigeria were being bombed day after day and entire villages of Christians slaughtered. Google and Yahoo would report it as if it rained somewhere, and I would scratch my head wondering why no one except Jihadwatch shows any concern for what is happening. Well, back then I did not know that those in positions of influence (the Left) weren’t simply apathetic, they actually had hatred in their hearts towards Christians. And this hatred was intense enough for them to turn a blind eye to the sufferings of those who they hate.

    Ironic, isn’t it? They call others ‘bigots’ when they themselves are full of enough hate to turn a blind eye to mass slaughter simply because the victims happen to hold certain beliefs [beliefs that clearly are non-violent].

    3) Among liberals, this competition mentality vs. Christians also exists when it comes to anti-Jihad. Yes they are anti-Islam but they want only themselves to be credited for defeating Islam. If they join hands with Robert, then a Christian would be credited too. Liberals cannot have that. They want Christians to get no credit at all. Christianity should be completely eliminated.

    This explains why these anti-Jihad leftists ignored it when Robert Spencer was declared a bigot and placed on SPLC’s hit-list. Recall that when the same happened to one of their own (Maajid Nawaz), they protested and demanded that Maajid be taken off the list. But even now they did not ask for anyone else to be taken off the list. Their message was clear- Take our guy off the SPLC hitlist but as for those we hate, we don’t care what happens to them.

    It should be obvious that the Left sees Robert as a competitor to be eliminated. They themselves may not call him a bigot or kill him, but why dirty your hands when there plenty others (e.g. SPLC and jihadists) willing to do it. If someone eliminates your competition, just keep your mouth shut and pretend as if nothing happened, and soon everyone will forget that the competition even existed. Smart, isn’t it?

    So that was my theory. I had not thought from the perspective of them pandering to the more powerful leftist forces, as Robert has opined in this article. After reading this article, I think that there are multiple reasons that explain the liberals’ behavior but the primary ones are- They see Christians as competition to be eliminated, as has been my theory, and they are scared of being rejected by the Left and so do self-harming things to protect themselves, as Robert has explained.

    Sam Harris has posted a response to Robert. IMO it is nothing but garbage that only shows that he is stupid and naive, besides being unfair. If time permits, I will write about why this is so. Anyone interested can read his response by clicking here.

  35. Darmanad says

    Dec 18, 2016 at 12:54 am

    Gee whiz, this is the one of the best running comment sections I ‘ve read at Jwatch and I’ve been a reader for more than a few years. Hats off to you contributors, some of whom appear to be new, thankfully.

    I have long maintained in my own sparse comments here that the terms leftist, right winger, liberal, conservative, etc are not well defined or employed by Robert or the vast majority of his readers. Definitions are often tautological or horribly one dimensional. Leftists, liberals and progressives (“LLPs”) are simply defined as those who don’t sufficiently condemn Islam/jihad without regard to their position on economic or social policy. I think Mr Spencer needlessly alienates many of his readers and limits his audience (and effectiveness) when he vilifies LLPs, many of whom actually do concur that Islam is a hateful ideology. Hey, I regard myself as an LLP because I favor social security, free healthcare, abortion, gay marriage, and reasonable social safety nets with higher taxes on the rich, but I never fail to condemn Islam to my acquaintances whenever the opportunity arises …and often I make it arise. I don’t care if it costs me “friends.” People need to be helped to work through their mind numbing political corrective-ness and ethical relativism and I regard it as a civic duty to help them.

    In other words, let’s not let differences on collateral issues and inexact language prevent us from working and voting together to stop the proliferation of Islam and jihad.

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 Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration
  • SKA on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Eva on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic
  • Eva on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic
  • Infidel on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic

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.