• 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

Collapse of the counter-jihad Left continues: Sam Harris says “Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ is a terrible policy…unethical”

Jan 31, 2017 2:16 pm By Robert Spencer

In December I wrote a piece entitled “Sam Harris and the collapse of the counter-jihad Left,” in which I noted Harris’ indifference to his friend and coauthor Maajid Nawaz’s endorsement of Keith Ellison in his quest to become chair of the Democratic National Committee, despite Ellison’s multiple ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. I also pointed out that Harris and Nawaz appeared to believe that “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.”

Harris and Nawaz offered a response of sorts in this podcast. Unfortunately, however, instead of addressing most of the points I raised, they spent most of their time talking about how I supposedly wanted to be on Harris’ podcast and was annoyed at his not having me on, and how Sam was just too busy to vet me and find out if I was really the bigoted gargoyle of Leftist/Islamic supremacist myth, and Maajid just too emotionally exhausted (as he repeatedly informed us), to engage me in any discussion or debate. This was a rather spectacular exercise in missing the point. I have noted that Nawaz refuses to debate me and Harris won’t have me on his show, but let me be clear: these were not requests. I am not losing any sleep over either refusal. I have plenty to do as it is, and making Sam Harris’ podcast is not quite my idea of hitting the big time. The point that I was making was that Harris is too afraid of the same Leftists who excoriate him as an “Islamophobe” to engage in discussion with someone who has been smeared in the same way. He knows that he has been defamed, but falls for and honors the same defamation when it is done to someone else. His inconsistency in this is simply cowardly. And that Nawaz’s refusal to subject his views to critical scrutiny in an open forum, except against people who are not all that well informed about Islamic doctrine, practice, and history, is telling.

Even worse, Harris asked Nawaz during that podcast about why he endorsed Ellison. Nawaz’s response was shocking. He spoke at length about how he persuaded Tommy Robinson to leave the English Defence League, portraying this as a valiant effort to extricate Tommy from “extremism,” and then explained that now he was going to turn his attention to the Muslim community in the same way — implying, but never stating, that he was going to try to turn Keith Ellison away from his own “extremist” proclivities for Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups. But the two situations are not remotely analogous: Nawaz was trying to get Robinson to change his views and forsake his associations; in Ellison’s case, he warmly endorsed him, without a murmur about the Muslim Brotherhood or any attempt to call Ellison out or get him to change any of his stances. It was an astonishing and highly disingenuous bit of footwork, and Harris didn’t challenge him on it.

And now comes even more evidence of the collapse of the counter-jihad Left, as its leading light again proves my point: for counter-jihad Leftists, “one may speak out against jihad terror and Sharia oppression as long as one is determined not to do anything about either one.” Much more below.

“A Few Thoughts on the ‘Muslim Ban,'” Sam Harris, January 29, 2017:

President Trump has had a busy first week in office, displaying the anarchic grandiosity, callousness, and ineptitude of which he seems uniquely capable. He is every inch what we knew him to be: a malignant Chauncey Gardiner.

Chauncey Gardiner was the lead character in Jerzy Kosinski’s novel Being There, which was made into a movie starring Peter Sellers. It’s the story of a semi-retarded gardener whose simple statements are mistaken for wise aphorisms as he becomes a highly respected political pundit. Harris is, in other words, saying that Trump is an idiot. This is a common trope on the Left for all politicians to their right whom they hate: you remember George W. Bush the chimp and senile Ronald Reagan. The funny thing about these claims is that Leftists simultaneously portray these people as evil geniuses who have managed to hoodwink large numbers of Americans into supporting their nefarious plans, and who have confounded the Left’s selfless efforts to create a just and inclusive society. How these bumbling fools manage to outwit the Left’s legions of geniuses and deep thinkers, they never explain. In this case, President Trump is certainly plain-spoken, sometimes speaks in incomplete sentences, and does spend time talking about his own accomplishments. Is he stupid? Well, who is in the Oval Office today: Trump or Hillary Clinton, whom Harris would never liken to a semi-retarded gardener mistaken for a delphic oracle? I also rather suspect that Trump has made a bit more money than Harris over the years, which requires its own kind of acuity.

And now our institutions have begun to shudder at his whim. The fact that atheists like me can’t find the time to worry about the religious crackpots he has brought with him into power is a measure of how bad the man is. Christian fundamentalism has become the least of our concerns. Our democracy has been engulfed by a hurricane of lies.

Indeed so, and Harris is purveying some of them right here. Calling Trump’s immigration executive order a “Muslim ban” is a trope of the Left, to be sure, and not limited to Harris, but it’s simply a lie. 87% of the world’s Muslims are just as free to come to the U.S. as they were on January 19. The preference given to religious minorities is clearly to protect those who are being persecuted by Islamic jihadis, not because of religious bigotry.

Many readers have asked me to comment on the president’s executive order suspending immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries. I believe I’ve stated my positions on the relevant topics fairly clearly. But perhaps a brief summary is in order.

1. I did everything I could to make the case against Trump prior to the election (while many of the liberals now attacking me for enabling his “Islamophobia” actively undermined the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, even in the final days of the campaign).

Indeed. And how someone who is aware of the nature and magnitude of the global jihad threat could have so strongly supported Clinton is mystifying. As I noted in my earlier piece, Hillary Clinton accepted money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar even while knowing that they also funded the Islamic State, and proclaimed against the evidence of every day’s headlines that “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” She had a long record of enabling the global jihad. Against her was a candidate who promised to resist that jihad strongly. Sam Harris chose the candidate who promised to continue Barack Obama’s denial and enabling of the global jihad.

2. I think Trump’s “Muslim ban” is a terrible policy. Not only is it unethical with respect to the plight of refugees, it is bound to be ineffective in stopping the spread of Islamism. As many have pointed out, it is also internally inconsistent: It doesn’t include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, or Lebanon, any of which has been a more fertile source of jihadist terrorism than several of the countries Trump named.

Priebus has said that some countries might be added. That means this list can be used as leverage to get our putative allies, such as Saudi Arabia, to do something about jihad terrorism. And if they don’t, the list awaits. If Hillary Clinton had done something like this, Harris would be hailing her shrewdness.

Meanwhile, the ban is “unethical”? Really? Here is the choice: either keep out some legitimate travelers or allow in some jihad mass murderers. Vetting, you say? Tashfeen Malik, one of the San Bernardino jihad mass murderers, passed five separate background checks at five different U.S. agencies. Also, all of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees.

The ban will be “ineffective in stopping the spread of Islamism”? Certainly on its own. But it’s a start. It is a more effective act of resistance to “Islamism” than anything Barack Obama mustered in eight years, or anything that Hillary Clinton might have done. Or does Harris endorse Obama’s toothless, willfully ignorant, and wholly ridiculous “Countering Violent Extremism” program, which scrupulously avoids all mention of jihad while purporting to counter it? In opposing the ban, Harris is standing not with others who are aware of the jihad threat and opposed to it, but with those who ignore, deny, downplay, and/or blame the U.S. for it.

3. However, most of what is being said in opposition to Trump’s order is thoroughly contaminated by identity politics and liberal delusion. The Left seems determined to empower the Right by continuing to lie about the problem of Islamism. As David Frum recently wrote, “When liberals insist that only fascists will defend borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won’t do.” I have been saying as much for more than a decade—and am vilified by my fellow liberals whenever I do.

This is generally a good point, but is Harris really saying that Trump is a fascist? I know many do. It is clear when they do that they have no idea what fascism actually was.

4. It is perfectly possible—and increasingly necessary—to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism, and even about the unique need for reform within mainstream Islam itself, without lapsing into bigotry or disregarding the suffering of refugees. Indeed, when one understands the problem for what it is, one realizes that secular Muslims, liberal Muslims, and former Muslims are among the most desirable allies to have in the West—and, indeed, such people are the primary victims of Islamist intolerance and jihadist terror in Muslim-majority countries.

Harris makes no effort to explain why Trump’s ban constitutes “bigotry.” Apparently he takes it as self-evident. And as for the suffering of refugees, it is obvious that genuine refugees need to be aided. Saudi Arabia shares a linguistic, cultural and religious bond with them, and has plenty of space. Why has it taken absolutely no refugees? Why is it incumbent upon the West to do so? And there is a real threat: in February 2015, the Islamic State boasted it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. The Lebanese Education Minister said in September 2015 that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country. On May 10, 2016, Patrick Calvar, the head of France’s DGSI internal intelligence agency, said that the Islamic State was using migrant routes through the Balkans to get jihadis into Europe. Are we not allowed to try to protect ourselves from this?

5. If liberals who refuse to speak honestly on these topics continue to march with Islamists, denigrate free speech, and oppose the work of the real reformers in the Muslim community, they will only further provoke and empower Trump. And Trump, in turn, will empower Islamists the world over by threatening the civil liberties of all Muslims within his reach.

The idea that “Trump will empower Islamists” casts into doubt whether Harris ever really did realize the nature of the jihad threat in the first place. The “reasoning” here appears to be that if we defend ourselves against Islamic jihadists by temporarily stopping immigration from jihad terror hotspots, it will only create more jihadists. So we must let that immigration continue, even though Islamic jihadists will be among the immigrants, and that will presumably make for fewer jihadists. If, in other words, we allow jihadis to enter the country and murder a certain number of American citizens, that will pacify other Muslims and keep them from becoming jihadis. But if we stop this immigration even temporarily in an attempt to prevent jihadis from entering the country, Muslims who were hitherto peaceful and moderate will be so enraged that they will take up arms against us.

Is Harris serious? This is tantamount to saying that we must not defend ourselves, because that will only embolden our attackers further. We should instead surrender to those attackers. Also, Barack Hussein Obama was President of the United States from January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2017. He flung the nation’s doors wide open to Muslim migrants, and heavily favored Muslims over non-Muslims. Did this stop Islamic State recruitment? Did it even slow it down? No, the Islamic State proclaimed itself the caliphate on June 29, 2014, during Obama’s presidency, and repeatedly declared its intention ultimately to conquer the U.S. It also repeatedly called for the murder of Americans. So we have solid evidence that an open-door immigration policy does not in reality pacify Islamic jihadis.

6. The next acts of jihadist terrorism to take place on American soil will most likely be met with terrifyingly blunt (and even illegal) countermeasures by the Trump administration. If all that liberals can do in response is continue to lie about the causes of terrorism and lock arms with Islamists, we have some very rough times ahead.

“Terrifyingly blunt (and even illegal) countermeasures by the Trump administration”? Unfounded hysteria.

7. If you are listening to obscurantists like Linda Sarsour, Dalia Mogahed, Reza Aslan, and representatives of CAIR, and denigrating true secularists and reformers like Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Raheel Raza, and Sarah Haider, you are part of the problem.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is great. But the idea that any of these people are above criticism is absurd and self-defeating. If Harris would grasp that and question some of his doctrinaire Leftism, he might arrive at some effective counter-jihad stance. But right now he is going in the other direction.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, Useful idiots, willful ignorance Tagged With: Sam Harris


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Dave Catleugh says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 2:19 pm

    They obviously hate Republicans more than Islamists.

    • Know Thy Enemy says

      Jan 31, 2017 at 2:35 pm

      After having watched them for over a year to figure out what goes on in their heads, I have to say you are correct!

    • Inconceivable! says

      Feb 1, 2017 at 6:12 am

      Hey folks, there’s a war on….just because they came in without guns, you’re too stupid to realize those millions of young, rapist men = AN ARMY! Get a clue!

    • A Harris USA says

      Feb 1, 2017 at 4:26 pm

      Dave, the Islamist terror groups care more about ruling the world, with their Islamic terror. That must be more ethical than maintaining a separate, independent, and free nation.. Separate from Islam, independent from Islam, and free of Islamic terror attacks!!! Yes to these pigs it is very scary!! Keep it up Pres. Trump!!

  2. Know Thy Enemy says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 2:56 pm

    “Even worse, Harris asked Nawaz during that podcast about why he endorsed Ellison. Nawaz’s response was shocking. He spoke at length about how he persuaded Tommy Robinson to leave the English Defence League, portraying this as a valiant effort to extricate Tommy from “extremism,” and then explained that now he was going to turn his attention to the Muslim community in the same way — implying, but never stating, that he was going to try to turn Keith Ellison away from his own “extremist” proclivities for Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups.”

    I have been watching this group (and what they say) for over a year and it always baffled me how they could [strongly] criticize Islam while at the same time support pro-Islam policies (e.g. import more Muslims) and politicians (Obama, Hillary, Ellison, etc) until I realized that they genuinely think that they can make Muslims ditch Islam and/or become secular.

    That is, they themselves are naive and deluded. They obviously are unaware what Islamists are capable of (via deception and violence). In Bangladesh, the Islamists successfully shut down 95+% of the blogs that they didn’t like. In France and the rest of the Leftist west, they managed to make the MSM censor themselves and now no MSM outlet dares publish cartoons of Muhammad.

    But these folks think they are somehow safe from all that.

    That, and the fact that even though they see that Islam is bad, they have not overcome their hatred of Republicans and so cannot keep themselves from supporting policies that they perceive would hurt Republicans.

    • Oliver says

      Jan 31, 2017 at 11:53 pm

      Sort of like Golda Meir about Arabs
      We can have peace when they love their children more then they hate us

    • alexei says

      Feb 1, 2017 at 2:52 am

      Talking of France, are you aware of a blog called Riposte Laique, which is concerned to protect freedom of expressiom, French culture and prevent the islamization of France –

      La lettre de Riposte Laïque

      One of their members is scheduled for trial in March for saying “islam assassin” when two police officers were murdered in Magnanville. If she’s convicted, the result will mean no one in France will be able to criticize Islam.

      • Know Thy Enemy says

        Feb 1, 2017 at 2:44 pm

        I think the results of the upcoming national elections in April will make a big difference too. If Marine Le Pen wins, let’s hope she works to strengthen Free Speech in her country.

        IMO the elections in Netherlands scheduled for March are even more important (even though Netherlands is a much smaller country). Reason. Reason: Geert Wilders. That man knows Islam and Muslims inside and out. IMO if he wins, his primary opponents are going to be the Left. I hope he asks President Trump for advise because Trump clearly knows how to keep the Left in its proper place (and that is an understatement).

        If Geert doesn’t win, but gains enough seats to become the primary opposition leader then too it would overall be a win for freedom. As opposition leader he can criticize any policy proposed or implemented by the ruling party and have it dropped, and can do all that without any cost to himself. With Geert in the opposition, the leaders of ruling party will not be sleeping well at night.

        So not all is lost in Europe. There are many freedom fighters there who should be supported!

  3. JW_Reader says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 3:01 pm

    I think, the ban is great. But, why not countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan and Afghanistan are on the list? After all, 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Quite a few recent terrorist attacks on US soil had links to Pakistan/Afghanistan. Egypt also merit a place on the list!

    • Oliver says

      Jan 31, 2017 at 11:56 pm

      Trump used laws passed in the Obama presidency. These laws specifically mentioned these 7 countries. One explanation I heard why Obama listed these was. The intelligence groups said that they were the most dangerous or violent.

      • maghan says

        Feb 1, 2017 at 2:31 am

        Point. But why don’t people know this? When Obama slapped a 6 month ban on Iraqis entering the U.S., there were NO wails of hysteria from the snowflakes.

        Refugees and their plight? Obama blocked hundreds of Cuban refugees from entering the U.S. while they were in mid passage. Where are the howls from the MSM?

        And those very wealthy Arab countries such as Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait have refused to take in any refugees. Saudi Arabia houses more than 3 million Hajjis annually, so that country is always bed-ready. And why isn’t that phony “intellectual” Sam Harris criticizing them? Answer: just a phony, pretentious faux-intellectual. In sum, and put colloquially, a regular B.S. artist and purveyor of bunk.

    • TH says

      Feb 1, 2017 at 4:12 am

      The idea of excluding Saudi Arabia is a smart one. It encourages them to be in good behaviour. It also seems that Trump wants them to take in refugees using the tent cities they have and use only a few days a year for the Mecca pilgrimage. As for Egypt, the idea si to support Al-Sisi and help him to overcome the Muslim Brotherhood.

  4. vladkoval says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 3:06 pm

    Unethical is to let the monsters in.
    Go cleanse your brains (if you have ones) and build your own countries with high life-standards – that’s the only reason why you want to enter USA. But even after entering it, you dream it to impose the things that keep your countries in the state of pile of shit.
    And one more: If you are moderate muslims who wouldn’t commit terroristic acts, and feel hurt by the ban, then know that you failed to prevent you radical brethren from terrorism. Therefore – you are fired !

  5. Aaron says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 3:06 pm

    Something changed in Sam recently. It’s strange and disappointing. Aside from Sam’s backing of Hillary’s islamist-funded campaign, I don’t trust his sidekick Nawaz, either. At the end of the day, Nawaz is still a self-described Muslim who reliably and enthusiastically supports Muslim politicians in the West (Sadiq Khan, Keith Ellison). Lots of red flags with both of those guys lately.

    • MacUalraig says

      Jan 31, 2017 at 9:09 pm

      I agree. Also, did Sam offer any suggestions of his own for protecting free humans from the
      Muslanimals?

    • lolwut? says

      Feb 1, 2017 at 2:21 am

      Nothing changed, he’s always been the controlled opposition.

      You just get labelled an anti-Semite for pointing out anything he does and says.

  6. Isntlam says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 3:10 pm

    Sam Harris called Trump an anti-Semite. I don’t know how he reached that conclusion. Trump’s daughter is Jewish, and Netanyahu called Trump a great friend of Israel.

    • Oliver says

      Jan 31, 2017 at 11:58 pm

      Trump’s two married sons also converted to Judaism
      So I read

      • Isntlam says

        Feb 1, 2017 at 1:46 am

        I can’t verify that, but I do see Trump has many Jewish business associates in his inner circle according to The Times of Israel.

    • maghan says

      Feb 1, 2017 at 2:35 am

      If Trump were Muslim he could easily have arranged for an “honor killing” and Muslims would have quietly said “Hooray”. And phony Sam Harris embraces those who embrace Islam.

  7. Wellington says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 3:12 pm

    Tending to prove yet again that the only real cure for a Leftist is the same for a Muslim, i.e., you must cease completely adhering to your belief system of choice. Just as there is no good Islam, so is it the case that there is no good Leftism. Oh, some Leftists are worse than others, ditto for Muslims, but since Leftism and Islam are massive errors and replete with totalitarian elements, the only efficacious course of action is complete separation.

    Ironically, and completely lost on the Left, is that the most stalwart defenders of freedom are modern conservatives. Remain a Leftie and you won’t get this.

    • maghan says

      Feb 1, 2017 at 2:37 am

      As Erdogan of Turkey said–“there is no moderate Islam. That’s an insult. Islam is Islam”.

      • j_not_a says

        Feb 1, 2017 at 7:46 am

        Exactly which is again why I don’t believe islam can ever be reformed.

      • j_not_a says

        Feb 1, 2017 at 1:06 pm

        NO “moderate” islam, then there can logically be no “moderate” muslims, Non muslims should stop trying to delude themselves and others into believing that if they just keep trying hard enough they can make that giant square peg fit into that tiny round hole.

  8. Cornelius says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 3:12 pm

    Robert defends Trump’s immigration policy, insisting it isn’t a blanket ban on Muslims (which it obviously isn’t). My point is this….in my estimation, the ban didn’t go nearly far enough. I think Pakistan and Afghanistan most assuredly belong on the list. I’m there are other Muslim-majority countries might qualify. I also wonder how the current policy will keep out actual agents of ISIS? Wouldn’t they just send in operatives from Indonesia, Nigeria, or any other country un-affected by the ban?

    So my question is, Robert, do you support a blanket ban on Muslim immigration? If not, why? If so, why defend Trump’s very limited and porous policy initiative….other than as a public-relations exercise on behalf of a President whom we both apparently support? Perhaps you support the policy as a first step towards an eventual blanket ban?

    Folks, I doubt Robert is going to answer this….because I fully understand his dilemma. I often refer to him as our ‘Fearless Leader’….and I mean that in all sincerity. Robert Spencer and David Horowitz are perhaps the two men I most admire in this great country of ours. But were Robert to publicly endorse a blanket ban on Muslim immigration, it would further sully his (unjustly) tarnished reputation as a hate-monger….and reinforce his banishment from both England and polite-society. Therefore, the prospects of him going on record are slim. Then again, he might surprise us.

    • Wellington says

      Jan 31, 2017 at 6:45 pm

      Hi, Cornelius. I hope you and those you hold most dear to your heart are doing well.

      I too at first thought the ban did not go far enough, but then I reflected upon the fact that Trump has not been President even two weeks, which made me rethink my initial reaction to this ban and see it as merely a first step. Can’t do everything at once and all that.

      And there is also the matter of skirting any appearance of religious discrimination. Even though Islam is rotten to the core and hides behind a religious veil, as you, I and so many others know, it is still a religion for First Amendment purposes and any ban that would look too obviously as though it was a religious ban, as opposed to a nation-state ban, would simply be shot down by virtually any federal judge. All of which demonstrates that Islam is in a very good position to use the Constitution to install itself in America even though it would gut or replace the Constitution if only given the chance.

      Very tricky stuff here. Right now, under present constitutional law, there is no way Islam can be held to a different standard than any other religion. Here reveals how even this magnificent document, the American Constitution, which William Gladstone, four times Prime Minister of the UK, said was the greatest document ever produced by man, is indeed, while extraordinary, still not perfect. The Founding Fathers did not have Islam in mind when they crafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No wonder, since Islam in the late 18th century was in a stupor, but now it has reawakened with a vengeance (Islam is very good at “the vengeance thing”) and even the American Constitution as of present is capable of being used by Islam in order to destroy it. So, either new judicial interpretations of the Constitution are needed to make an exception for Islam, or a new amendment is, or Congress, pursuant to Article III, Section 2, can pass a law or laws against Islam and remove any judicial review of this.

      Not even close to any of this yet and so only incremental steps against the hideous belief system which is Islam are realistic right now. Hope such realism can be changed sooner rather than later because Islam is the turd in the punch bowl of world religions and right now it is still in the driver’s seat (sorry for the mixing of metaphors), and is aided in its nefarious designs by the monumental error which is Leftism.

      In any case, these are my thoughts on the subject and I allow myself to be pleased that a patriot became President rather than that malicious, incompetent, and corrupt fool who opposed him for the Presidency. Things in flux no doubt and America and all the West’s fate hangs in the balance. Ah, what the hell, it’s only a matter of Western Civilization surviving or not. Yeah, that’s all it’s a matter of.

      • Lucretius says

        Jan 31, 2017 at 9:44 pm

        Cheer up, the Constitution gives Congress plenary power over immigration and naturalization, and the First Amendment applies to those under US jurisdiction, not those seeking admission to it.

        As for those under US jurisdiction, it was decided in Reynolds vs United States (98 US 145, 1878) it was decided that the First Amendment allowed of no defense in the practice of a criminal act (in this case bigamy) on religious grounds, but only freedom of belief. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

        So no, the real difficulty is not the Constitution, but in manfully achieving enactments and policies in the face of the screeching consciences of our dear “global citizens.” But you have to be the stern sort to play at van Helsing as you drive stakes through their hearts.

        • Wellington says

          Jan 31, 2017 at 10:36 pm

          Ah yes, the Reynolds case, which is to say the Mormon polygamy case. But this was on a SPECIFIC religious issue wherein the SC correctly ruled that religious belief alone does not allow for a certain activity, for instance polygamy (in the Reynolds case) or the use of hallucinogenic drugs by American Indians as part of their religion (I forget the damn case here). Ditto for Satanists who can certainly believe the rot they want to, but, of course, pursuant to their foolish religion can’t have a human sacrifice from time to time.

          But inveighing against an entire religion is a different matter, which was my point to begin with and why Trump’s Executive Order had to be nation-based and not religiously based. So you see, in order to exclude Muslims en masse, not just those from some seven nations but Muzzies in general from the over fifty Islamic nations that exist, AND because they are Muzzies (and I get and agree with your point distinguishing those who are presently under US jurisdiction versus those “merely” seeking admission to the US) the First Amendment, I guarantee you, will come up where not wholly discriminating against a particular religion is concerned. No way, under present constitutional law, can federal judges say we won’t let A people or B people or C people into the US SOLELY because of the religion they adhere to.

          In short, games still have to be played (e.g., by singling out certain nations, only a “coincidence” they are all Muslim majority, whose citizens can’t come here). We can either continue to play these games or move to identifying Islam, all of it, as a nefarious ideology which does not deserve the religious protection other religions do but this will entail what I already asserted———radically different judicial interpretations, or an amendment to the Constitution making Islam an exception to the First Amendment, or Congress passing legislation excluding Muslims and, pursuant to Article III, Section 2, constitutionally excluding judicial review of such laws. As I previously indicated, whichever the case, a very steep legal and constitutional hurdle has to be climbed. I do think such a hurdle can be climbed but only if Islam, ALL OF IT, is finally identified as the giant negative which it is. I short, I want grand strategy and not mere tactics.

          Thank you for your reply and should you see any error in my legal reasoning here, I would be most grateful if you would point it out to me.

        • maghan says

          Feb 1, 2017 at 2:57 am

          The issue here is what are the differences between an authentic religion and an ideology? How does the U.S. Constitution treat an ideology such as Communism? One of the requirements for citizenship naturalization for the U.S. is that one has to deny ever supporting the principles of communism. Are such requirements still on the books?

          So, the issue boils down to whether Islam is a religion or an ideology. The puzzling point is that both are “belief systems”. So are the differences specious? If not, then what is it about “religion” that assigns to it it’s very special status?

          How would the U.S. constitution treat the religion of the Aztecs? Or a religion that requires human sacrifice?

      • randall says

        Feb 1, 2017 at 1:55 am

        Actually, the Trump administration has done something quite shrewd here. The seven countries on the list are , of course, the original seven that the Obummer admin. singled out. However, the White House has made clear that other states can be added in future. This is clearly a warning shot to the likes of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. At first, I was also disappointed by this seeming half-measure, but as you point out, Trump can’t do everything at once. Can you even believe we are actually discussing the POTUS taking drastic action to defend the non-Muslim world? How quickly the paradigm has turned! And none too soon.

      • Lucretius says

        Feb 1, 2017 at 2:56 am

        “No way, under present constitutional law, can federal judges say…” and “…a very steep legal and constitutional hurdle has to be climbed.”

        I get the impression from these phrases that you think immigration law is a matter of the Constitution and judges pronouncing on it, when the text of the Constitution gives full and SOLE STATUTORY authority and discretion to Congress and a cursory glance at the history of immigration law in the United States seconds this impression.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_laws

        If you look, you can see there were times when Congress limited immigration to whites, or denied it to “undesirables” such as anarchists and communists. And as one can see in that article, the Supreme Court in Kwong Hai Chew vs Colding Template (344 US 590, 1953) found, “The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores.” The grounds for exclusion to entry are STATUTORY, PERIOD. That is, whatever one can get Congress to pass and the President to sign–THAT’S IT, THE COURT HAS NO FURTHER VOICE IN THE MATTER. So the only hurdle in the immigration question is “spiritual”, not Constitutional.

        I’m no Constitutional scholar, but that is what the evidence I came across tells me. Those who use the First Amendment or the “no religious test” clause in Article VI, Section 3 to set up obstacles are blowing smile, making appeals to “spirit” and conscience, not to relevant law. So let not their babbling dreams affright our souls to keep us from our strong purpose, for what is the conscience of these fatuous “global citizens” to us?

        • Wellington says

          Feb 1, 2017 at 2:08 pm

          “I get the impression from these phrases that you think that immigration law is a matter of the Constitution and judges pronouncing on it.”

          All American statutory law, Lucretius, is a matter of the Constitution and how it is interpreted by judges. Nonetheless, you have raised a very interesting point and it has made me reconsider this matter. Now there is the 1982 Chadha case whereby the Supreme Court by a 7-2 decision nixed Congress’ overturning of an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) decree that allowed one, Chadha, to remain in the United States and not face deportation. So one can see in a case like this one that Congress’ power over immigration is not absolute and the Supreme Court will intervene on immigration matters. I would also point out that the 1953 case you cited is an old one and so I see legal fluidity here, a legal and constitutional matter that is still in flux.

          Of course, no Congress henceforth would pass an immigration law which would only allow whites into America and, as things stand now, I am certain the Congress would never pass an immigration law forbidding Muslims immigrating to America simply because they are Muslim. But what if Congress did? Would this be entirely a legislative matter and the courts would keep their judicial hands off of this? I very much doubt the judicial branch would remain quiet here and thus that fluidity I spoke of would, I am virtually certain, get extra fluid real quick like. Don’t know for sure and it might revolve around the 14th Amendment’s provision of equal protection under the law rather than the First Amendment’s freedom of religion provision. Again, don’t know.

          I want to thank you for raising the issues that you did. I think I will consult other lawyers about this. You know, the law is so complex and is always changing that even many lawyers will admit they don’t know about the constitutionality of a particular Executive Order or Congressional statute. Just look at how some lawyers, including Democratic politicians who are lawyers, just the other day came out against Trump’s EO seven-nation ban, maintaining that it is unconstitutional, while a lot of other lawyers (e.g., Laura Ingraham) said it was clearly constitutional (which is my legal opinion too). And Alan Dershowitz, a truly eminent Harvard Law Professor (and old-fashion liberal who has decried modern liberalism’s shutting down of free speech on college campuses) just yesterday opined on the Michael Medved radio talk show that Trump’s EO may or may not have unconstitutional provisions in it. And no one knows American law and American legal history better than does Dershowitz and even he isn’t sure here. I trust you see “the problem.”

          Again, thanks for this back and forth. It challenged me and I relish being challenged. Take care.

      • Cornelius says

        Feb 1, 2017 at 3:03 pm

        Hey Wellington old buddy. Great offering. Thanks for the typical moral and intellectual clarity.

        • Wellington says

          Feb 1, 2017 at 5:17 pm

          Good to hear from you, Cornelius. You know, I have thought about this issue you raised even more so after my last post to Lucretius and I think I may have come up with a reason why the courts would intervene if Congress passed an immigration law banning Muslims. It would be by way of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which I already mentioned in my missive to Lucretius but here are the details.

          If such a ban were passed by Congress there would be at least some foreign Muslims who have Muslim relatives here in America who are American citizens and these Muslim American citizens (understand, I wish we had no Muslims who were American citizens but we do of course) would not be equally protected under the law as would Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. who are also American citizens and have foreign relatives who are of the same religious persuasion and who can visit them here in the US.

          Just a thought. Damn, Islam has free nations by the balls and Islam knows this and will use our freedoms to destroy our freedoms. Deuce difficult “stuff” here, though I would bring up again Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution which does allow Congress to exclude from court review whatever it wants and herein lies the way, I believe, for America. But of course all this is predicated on the assumption that Islam is finally described for the heinous religious ideology which it is. No use, though, going down the path of trying to assert Islam is not a religion for purposes of First Amendment religious protection because Islam by First Amendment standards is as much a religion as Satanism is and thus enjoys First Amendment protection. After all, where is it written that a religion must be good?

          Take good care, my friend. You post rarely here at JW anymore but when you do you always have a salient and sapient point to make. Bye for now. .

      • Know Thy Enemy says

        Feb 2, 2017 at 4:56 am

        Hi Wellington, your posts here are very insightful and there is a lot that people like me learn from reading them. Thank you for all your efforts.

        So Islam cannot be excluded from First Amendment protections because it is a religion, and because of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. And that makes sense. Islam is indeed a religion. However we need to tackle the issue from a different angle. We need to emphasize [to Congress and to everyone else] that Islam is also a state with a built in government, law, enforcement apparatus, and even a military. The mosques are this state’s government centers. As many people know, the mullah acts as a caliph and a judge, can direct jihad, and his decisions are binding on Muslims.

        Jihadists are the military wing of this state. In Reliance of the Traveler, it says that Jihad is communal obligation, which means that if enough people in the community perform it, it is not obligatory on others. This is very similar to how countries have militaries. Not every citizen of a country has to become a soldier. If sufficient number of citizens are in the defense forces, the rest do not have to join.

        A Muslim is a citizen of this state and the Ummah is the collective body of these citizens (just as Americans is the collective body of US citizens).

        Now here is the important part-
        The presence of a mosque, a mullah (imam), and Muslims (who attend mosques) within the boundaries of the US (for example) literally means that there is a parallel government and a parallel citizenry residing within the boundaries of the country. It is insanity to allow such a thing.

        Now people CAN be legal citizens of two countries simultaneously, but that almost always is accepted only if the two countries have friendly relations and if the values of the two countries are very similar. For example, a person holding a dual US and Canadian citizenship. But if the two countries are not on friendly terms, dual citizenship is not accepted. For example, no one could hold a dual US and [Soviet] Russian citizenship. The person had to choose one or the other. [I am not sure how things are now].

        Islam is at war with the US and so there is no reason why someone should be holding a dual US and Islam[ic state] citizenship. But that is exactly what happens if Muslims, mosques, and their mullahs are present in the US.

        It is from this angle that we need to present an anti-Islam case to Congress, the President, and to the courts. Between the US and the state called Islam, people should be choosing one or the other. If they call themselves Muslim (citizen of Islam), they should NOT be recognized as US citizens.

        Hence we need to convince the government to see Islam as a special case that needs to be evaluated thoroughly. Hopefully, when the above mentioned facts are pointed out, the Congress would be more likely to exclude from court review whatever it decides regarding Islam, and who knows, if matters do end up in court, the judges might agree that Islam is indeed a special case.

        All we can do is try, but try we must. Thanks again for all you do. Bye for now.

    • Lucretius says

      Jan 31, 2017 at 8:38 pm

      Robert has not shied away from calling for a complete moratorium on Muslim immigration. Watch this video he published earlier today starring at 2:50 where he says “[Jihad terrorism] can be stopped. But it can only be stopped if authorities make the hard choices to implement measures such as Jan Stoltenberg wouldn’t dare even contemplate: A moratorium on Muslim immigration, the deportation of criminal aliens, the requiring of mosques to teach against the al-Qaeda/ISIS understanding of Islam, and more.”

      https://youtu.be/mPmCcENOG1Q

      • j_not_a says

        Feb 1, 2017 at 7:50 am

        Right and also on his recent article ask me anything he said he also believes there should be a ban on muslim immigration as a tool in fighting jihad terror in the US. I read the entire question and answer text and it was definitely there in black and white.

    • maghan says

      Feb 1, 2017 at 2:44 am

      Trump cleverly used Obama’s 7-country list to smoke out Obama as the originator of that idea. So the howls and squeals from the liberals just expose their hypocrisy. If he had used his own independent list he would not have been able to reference Obama.

      Pakistan and Arabia. If one wants to be cynical, one could say that both countries are excluded because rumors are out there that Obama once had a Pakistani boyfriend and that some Saudi money-man paid his Harvard tuition fees.

      • j_not_a says

        Feb 1, 2017 at 7:52 am

        I believe Pakistan and Afghanistan will be added sooner rather than later.

    • Wellington says

      Feb 2, 2017 at 12:42 pm

      Know Thy Enemy: Thanks for your reply. Islam can be kept legal here in the US, just as Nazism and Marxism are, but America en masse must finally open its eyes to the fact that Islam is not just another religion and is as nefarious as the two secular totalitarian ideologies I mentioned (actually more so since Nazism is pretty much dead and Marxism largely discredited except among that woeful class called intellectuals). Should this occur (had better), then the rest will take care of itself (including Congressional and Executive action). Not there yet though.

  9. Westman says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 3:16 pm

    I’m not surprised at the counter-jihad-left collapse.

    After years of decades of observation of the political and societal drift in the US, I can no longer deny that the liberalization has reached unrecoverable proportions that will seal the dissolution of the nation into chaos and economic decline. We are in a pre-revolution state, with a discord similar to the 1930’s that, without the demands of WWII, would have torn the nation apart.

    I hope I may be forgiven for saying this – everything about anti-jihad efforts will come to naught unless the citizens are united, both as patriotic Americans and in opposition to jihad. I don’t see anything, short of war that threatens the homeland and requires everyone’s actual effort for survival, being sufficient to bring back unity to the nation.

    The Muslim threat to the US is real, yet too far in the future for a young, hedonistic, idealistic left to perceive and too undermining of their life’s work for older liberals to accept. When it becomes real to them, it may be too late.

    • underbed cat says

      Feb 1, 2017 at 12:49 pm

      Westman I agree. Many factors are working against the truth being told about the risk of Islam…and one is the problem of knowledge and definition. Is is the adjective/noun that is defined as a religion although it has a legal system sharia that is enforced and is a command to the followers..that doctrine in Sura 2 thru 9 already exposes problems. So in order to protect itself, it also allows muslims to deny, omit and deceive people not familiar or interested in the facts, to conclude it is a religion with rights and not different, or that appears peaceful and tolerant. It is the doctrine that terrorist use and is vehemently denied by supporters as racist or hijacked or radicalized.It protects itself by that claim and the followers who are not allowed to confirm to details or misinterpret the facts. Then they claim mob mentallity, white supremacism if exposed. A rational discussion has critics on boths sides but especially from the left. This is the a huge problem and the preparation to subvert has been in the works, with full acceptance and ignorance and grew, 9/11 was planned here also, experts who warn. have read the doctrine and understand sharia, those who do not know or believe will not defend themselves and think it is fringe…the wearing down is relentless. The U.N has many muslim country members who are attempting to criminalize facts,know as slander, which is a silencing of free speech with the vote to enact resolution 1618 in the U.S. that is very alarming. It just takes a vote of the uninformed.

  10. Gwen says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 3:31 pm

    Tommy Robinson was never an extremist, he was one man trying to hold back a tide before anyone else knew it was coming in.

    I unsubscribed from listening to Sam Harris when he proved himself to be incapable of recognising Clinton’s criminality and when he continued to display such an over the top emotional reaction to Trump’s personality. Perhaps he has personal demons to explore before involving himself in Trump related policy debates. It’s a shame though.

    • maghan says

      Feb 1, 2017 at 3:00 am

      Just another of those shallow, contradictory, phony so-called “intellectuals”.

  11. Guest says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    Underestimating and insulting Trump and his voters as ‘idiots’ and ‘racists’ is exactly, *exactly* why the previously Democrat-voting states switched to Trump. And the Democrats just keep on with the insults.

  12. Guest says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 3:36 pm

    “So we must let that immigration continue, even though Islamic jihadists will be among the immigrants, and that will presumably make for fewer jihadists.”

    Sure there will be fewer, because some of them will be blowing themselves up as they commit jihad against non-muslims.

  13. John Duffin says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 3:42 pm

    Very Good.

  14. davej says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 3:43 pm

    What the leftist apologists refuse to acknowledge is that the Islamic Jihad is entirely independent of anything we have done or might say or do. It also predates the discovery of America by a time period measured in centuries. The call to massacre infidels echoes down from a period long before anything like Europe was even established.

    So the present day battle is nothing new and very unlikely to be “reformed” by a well meaning minority.

  15. Champ says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 4:01 pm

    For starters, this isn’t a “muslim ban”, so why is he repeating this lie? Very telling, and this is one of the main reasons why I don’t give a rats ass WHAT the left has to say about President Trump’s decision, and I am behind it 1000%.

    We *finally* have a president courageous enough to do the right thing, and that’s that. We live in a different world now, and islamic terrorism has increased dramatically; it’s high time that common sense made a comeback–and with President Trump it has! He is a great leader!

    • chrissie01 says

      Jan 31, 2017 at 4:38 pm

      they weep and whine when they don’t get the ‘tolerance’ they always demand and never grant.

      • Champ says

        Jan 31, 2017 at 8:42 pm

        So true, Chrissie01.

  16. vladkoval says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 4:45 pm

    Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
    Mother of Exiles (who spend vacations in the land that “exiled” them).
    From her beacon-hand
    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
    “Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
    With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free (through hijabs),
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless (who have double citizenship),
    tempest-tossed to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

  17. Paul N Silas says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 4:45 pm

    Dennis Prager had a superb article last week in National Review where he spells out that we are into the Second American Civil War. Of course the Left’s pushing Islam is a huge part of it. He goes on to state that this Civil War has not turned violent yet, but only time will tell.

  18. Guest says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 4:46 pm

    Paul Joseph Watson’s video on the fake ‘muslim ban’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNu4xU9qOEM

  19. underbed cat says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 5:01 pm

    Trump has the law on his side to temporary ban immigration. Migration is not a right especially when the islamic world, much of the ummah, is declaring war on the U.S. as a command tomigrate (hijra) to spread islam and gather land for a caliphate. Flying the planes into the Trade Towers was an act of war by Islam. That has been happening to countries for many years. And they fight each other. That statement was found in the 9/11 Commission Report before it was removed as requested by Cair.

  20. Angemon says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 5:05 pm

    It is perfectly possible—and increasingly necessary—to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism, and even about the unique need for reform within mainstream Islam itself, without lapsing into bigotry or disregarding the suffering of refugees.

    And here it is, the great “Harris Delusion”: the idea that somehow he can – and will! – play an important role in “reforming” a 1400-year ideology, all wrapped in glowing virtue-signalling (“let’s not lapse into bigotry and not disregard the suffering of refugees”). I suspect he’ll never, ever address the idea that so-called “islamism” is simple mainstream, orthodox islam because that means that reforming it is not a matter of filing some edges but of creating a completely different ideology – and that will be met with plenty of resistance and pushback, both in the islamic world and by his fellow leftards. How dare that privileged white straight male school the poor non-white people about their religion?!?!?!

    Sam Harris should stick to what he’s good (well, sufferable) at: please his captive audience with his low church atheist antics – as far as islam is concerned, he’s not only way over his head, he’s also vulnerable to legitimating islamic con artists presenting islam as fundamentally innocuous.

    • Angemon says

      Jan 31, 2017 at 5:19 pm

      Oh, and for all his high-horse preaching about being “increasingly necessary—to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism”, he leaves out critical info in order to sound open-minded and intellectual. That info being, there’s a caveat: he’s only willing to talk with carefully selected individuals, and anyone who he doesn’t “dignify” by “allowing” him to “discuss” with him are “wrong-thinkers” by default and whatever it is they say is to be disregarded because bigotry. F*** him, f*** the high horse he rode in, the blacksmith that made its shoes, the stable boy that groomed its mane and the artisan who made its saddle.

    • maghan says

      Feb 1, 2017 at 3:05 am

      And the stupid fool does not understand of know that “mainstream Islam cannot be reformed”. After all, the Qur’an represents the “unalterable words of Allah”.

  21. Champ says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 5:10 pm

    The Left has embraced the madness of islam & company because in their view right & wrong is all ‘relative’ …

    • Champ says

      Jan 31, 2017 at 5:16 pm

      Oh but they’re super clear that President’s Trump ban is all *wrong*, which of course it isn’t–just more backasswards thinking on their part.

  22. overman says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 5:23 pm

    “If, in other words, we allow jihadis to enter the country and murder a certain number of American citizens, that will pacify other Muslims and keep them from becoming jihadis. But if we stop this immigration even temporarily in an attempt to prevent jihadis from entering the country, Muslims who were hitherto peaceful and moderate will be so enraged that they will take up arms against us.

    Is Harris serious? This is tantamount to saying that we must not defend ourselves, because that will only embolden our attackers further. We should instead surrender to those attackers”

    Nicely dismantled.

    Harris is full of Logical fallacies.

    ‘A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Logical fallacies are like tricks or illusions of thought, and they’re often very sneakily used by politicians and the media [and ppl like Harris] to fool people. Don’t be fooled!’

  23. marsfeld says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 5:45 pm

    Listening to the podcast, I think both did show respect to Spencer, something he obvioulsy isn’t keen on returning here. They even “unsmeared” him clearly from the implication that Spencer or others are “the real islamophobes and bigots” and somehow deserve to be on the SPLC list. Nothing of this gets mentioned in this pretty thin-skinned piece.

    There is a debate to be had about the so-called “muslim” ban – and even as I tend to support it, I’m very disappointed with its implementation and the bad PR that could reliably be expected to follow from it. This could have been done in a much more professional way, period.

    And I think it’s perfectly appropriate and legit to oppose Harris et al. on this issue, but the way it is done here and the way Spencer keeps on insisting on framing his issues with that camp now, by constant hostile rhetorics and apocalyptic mumbo jumbo about anyone or anything “collapsing” start to stink of petty, inappropriate rivalry, sorry.

    I’m not going to spend a minute of further attention to this intra-“counter jihadist” drama queen bitching in the future.

    • maghan says

      Feb 1, 2017 at 3:21 am

      If Hillary had been voted POTUS and had done exactly as Trump had done the reactions would not have been the same. The MSM would have praised her for her decisiveness. After all, Obama banned Iraqi visitors for 6 months. No serious reaction from the MSM.

      Obama blocked Cuban refugees in mid-passage from entering the U.S. Where was the outraged reaction?

      Old adage: “Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue”.

    • Angemon says

      Feb 1, 2017 at 6:28 am

      “And I think it’s perfectly appropriate and legit to oppose Harris et al. on this issue, but the way it is done here and the way Spencer keeps on insisting on framing his issues with that camp now, by constant hostile rhetorics and apocalyptic mumbo jumbo about anyone or anything “collapsing” start to stink of petty, inappropriate rivalry, sorry. ”

      Hmmm, where have I heard this kind of rhetoric before? “You can criticize/oppose <ideology but these people and/or the way they do it are wrong”?…

  24. Ed says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 6:00 pm

    Sam and Maajid continually use the word “Islamism”. Sam perhaps doesn’t know, but Maajid certainly does, that no such word exists in Arabic. What they describe as “Islamism” is simply Islam as envisoned and practiced by Muhammad.

    The difference between Maajid and people such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Hamed Abdel Samad (who should be much better known in North America) is that they critically looked at the sources of Islam and found them wanting. Maajid is no different than Reza Aslan and many others who are unable to criticize Muhammad, the Quran, or Islam. Just ask Maajid where Muhammad made a mistake, where he got it wrong, to understand that.

  25. KrazyKafir says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 6:15 pm

    Harris is, and always, was a weak sister.

  26. vlparker says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 7:30 pm

    When leftists die the medical scientists should study their brains to find out why they are totally incapable of rational thought.

    • annmarie says

      Feb 1, 2017 at 6:52 am

      reply to viparker
      ……………………………………………………………….
      Leftists use more drugs.

  27. common sense says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 7:40 pm

    Harris and Nawaz’s only concern is basking in the glow of their own smug, self importance. They are unable articulate why they should not debate Robert.

  28. abad says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 9:01 pm

    The worst part being, Muslims never shut up about vocally hating America yet whine and complain when they come here.

    These people are VERY sick and should NOT be allowed within our borders.

    They can stay in their own Muslim nations.

  29. gravenimage says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 9:08 pm

    Collapse of the counter-jihad Left continues: Sam Harris says “Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ is a terrible policy…unethical”
    ………………….

    Really, Sam Harris should know better than this. Very disappointing.

    • MacUalraig says

      Jan 31, 2017 at 9:27 pm

      I don’t understand this guy. What are his suggestions? Write more books with guys that play moderate yet support the Ellison’s of the world? Go on Maher’s show and argue with moronic actors?

      I’ve enjoyed watching Sam Harris speak and debate in the past, so like you I’m disappointed.

      I’m happy to see that Spencer is calling out Harris on his inconsistencies.

      I want this ironed out so I know who is who on the battlefield.

    • maghan says

      Feb 1, 2017 at 3:24 am

      Why should he know better? Is he capable of rational thought?

  30. Hos Loftus says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 9:45 pm

    Mr Spencer likely won’t be reading this. But I believe he and Harris have a lot more in common thaname either is willing to admit. I wish they could work together. This is no time for petty squabbling.

  31. j_not_a says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 10:02 pm

    I liked the points made in Paragraph 5 that all the “welcoming” and appeasement and bending over backwards that oblowhard did during his years in the WH did absolutely NOTHING to temper the determination of the jihadists who were bent on committing terror attacks on US soil. They came hard and steady regardless. Bammy must not have heard the one about feeding the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

    On another note, I’m sorry but I just DO NOT agree at all with any hope of a reformation of islam. Not from anything I’ve read in their texts. And as well, I don’t believe there can realistically and practically exist (acceptable to the ummah) varying “shades” and “flavours” of muslims – secular, liberal, modern-pcifist, progressive, whatever. The sunnis and shias in 1400 plus years still cannot even make the single decision as to who should be the rightful successor to mohammed.

    I see islam as a cult/mafia/mob organization, you can check out any time, but you can never leave. The penalty for leaving the mob/islam is death, we all know that. You have two choices – you are in or out (dead). That is how they (islam) see it. Does it matter how WE see it? or those who think they are secular, liberal, progressive, MINO, etc. see it? No it doesn’t because to the ummah, THEY see them as the enemy, to be destroyed. So how are those “free thinkers” ever going to change islam, reform it, when they are marked for death? Good luck with that. There aren’t nearly enough, will never be enough of them to fight for it, they will always be vastly outnumbered.

    Reform, it ain’t happening,

  32. South East Asian Kafir says

    Jan 31, 2017 at 10:40 pm

    Maajid Nawaz could be a stealth Jihadist or a scam artist but it doesn’t matter. He pretend to try to reform Islam. But I still haven’t seen any evidence of his competent in Islamic history nor classical Arabic. All he did was going around the world and fool the Kafir that he is an Islamic scholar. I haven’t seen his reinterpretation of Quran and hadiths. All he created is a vaporware.

  33. Michael Hughes says

    Feb 1, 2017 at 2:27 am

    Maajid a Reformist ??? I have never seen anything from Maajid to stop the spread of jihad or Islam his never once said this has to be removed from the Koran or condemned anything in writing or interviews his a Mohammedan follower and is making a lot of money milking the system.

  34. melancholy observer says

    Feb 1, 2017 at 5:50 am

    I am very saddened by Sam Harris’ apparent back-flip over all this. It seems that Sam has more distaste for.Trump’s supposed vulgarity than he has for the JIhad, and Islamic demographic conquest..I thought Sam was a truly independent thinker but alas, he is just another one like so many of my own friends whois an unreconstructed social democrat first and anti-Jihadist second. Sam is terribly wrong on all this. I hope he has the potential to wake up but I am pessimistic.

  35. kukum says

    Feb 1, 2017 at 8:22 am

    i have not seen any post relating to the Quebec mosque shooting Mr. Spencer. you see your double stands, or that one ain’t terrorism? very soon Allah will deal with you bye.

  36. Savvy Kafir says

    Feb 1, 2017 at 10:32 am

    As a die-hard progressive counter-jihadi, I have really been disappointed by some of Sam Harris’s positions & comments in recent months. I’ve been a HUGE fan of his for years; but his support for Hillary Clinton, and his reluctance to be associated with Robert Spencer were really bad calls.

    I know Sam has received a f**king tsunami of hateful attacks from his fellow Lefties for years now; and I think it’s finally taken a toll on his courage & his candor. I still consider him one of the most intelligent people on the planet, and I think deep down he knows better than what he’s willing to say publicly these days. I think he knows that attempting to “reform” Islam is a hopeless endeavor, regardless of what his friend Maajid says. And if it cannot be reformed, the logical conclusion is that it cannot remain in the West, without dire consequences for free, civilized societies — in which case, Trump’s “Muslim ban”, affecting only those from a few countries, temporarily, is just a tentative first step.

  37. Atheist Kaffur says

    Feb 1, 2017 at 12:14 pm

    Stop Calling this restriction a “Muslim Ban”. Immigration is a discretionary policy for sovereign nations. Immigration is not a right because your own country is a hell whole and an economic failure.

  38. Atheist Kaffur says

    Feb 1, 2017 at 12:21 pm

    If you call it something call it a middle Eastern Ban. With respect to Trump helping religious minorities the key word is PERSECUTED MINORITIES in this case Christians. Trump is 100% correct to help Christians not because they are Christians but because they are being PERSECUTED. If they were atheist I would say the same thing.

  39. Atheist Kaffur says

    Feb 1, 2017 at 12:24 pm

    I used to like Sam Harris in the day he was exposing Islam now maybe he turned into a shill.

  40. underbed cat says

    Feb 1, 2017 at 1:38 pm

    Harris once stated on Bill Mahr show, something to the effect Islam has a boat load of bad ideas…. so he knows but apparently in the boat are some who do not profess those bad ideas, but after a lifetime of indoctrination, it might be extremely few who do not support the ideas. Migration is part of the attempt to bring islam to other lands….hijra….and the people who migrate know this….humanitarian efforts seem to over look dangers, and hence Germany, Sweden, Britain and have to live and suffer the consequences. Why are the statistics and news restricted about what is happening abroad..and the horrific results of just a few people, but they are protected by many, and the reports omit a very important description and may or may not report what the jihadist says, as if irrelevant. And that denial is almost demanded by the media, civil rights against the right for truth and security.

  41. Maria Sederholm says

    Feb 2, 2017 at 5:10 am

    Maajid Nawaz EX- extremist? Adam Deen – Managing Director of Quilliam – EX-extremist?

    I have MANY things to say about Sam Harris, not many of them positive. As time is short for me right now, I’ll have to get back with a more substantial critique later.

    Thanks for this article, Robert. There is much more to investigate on this subject. By the way, appreciated your chat with Gad Saad!

  42. R says

    Feb 2, 2017 at 10:15 am

    Sam Harris has to be the dumbest, supposed intelligent person I’ve ever seen.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • revereridesagain on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • James Lincoln on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • Carol on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • James Lincoln on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • Jayme on Canadian Mental Health Association studies Muslim women’s mental health due to ‘discrimination’ and ‘hate crimes’

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.