• 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

Zuhdi Jasser endorses pro-Sharia Islamic supremacist, says “no greater jihadists” than foes of jihad terror

Mar 14, 2017 3:42 pm By Robert Spencer

There has for many years been a difference of opinion among those who are aware of the reality of the jihad threat. There are those who believe it very important, indeed, crucial to the success of our efforts to resist the global jihad and Sharia supremacism, to include reformist Muslims in them, and to support their efforts in any way we can. Some even enthusiastically play along with the Left’s identity politics, and highlight reformist Muslims as the hallmark of their work’s legitimacy. Last summer I was at a meeting of several organizations discussing collaborative efforts when one man looked around the table and said: “All of us here are middle-aged white guys. We’re going to need to get a Muslim to be the spokesman for this initiative.” I was stunned: isn’t the truth true even when a middle-aged white man says it? Are we now voluntarily assuming the role of dhimmis whose word is worthless unless a Muslim validates it?

That’s the thinking of one camp. The other camp notes that Muslim reformers have had little to no influence on the Islamic community in the U.S. or around the world since 9/11, and isn’t likely to do so, given the nature of Islamic doctrine and jurisprudence, and so we cannot rely on them and don’t need them to validate our work. After all, the armies that repelled the jihadis of the past at Tours and Vienna and elsewhere didn’t think of themselves as less legitimate unless they had a Muslim regiment.

But in the years since 9/11, that perspective has been steadily edged out of the public discourse. The public discussion on the jihad threat has been essentially dominated on the one hand by those who insist that Islam is a religion of peace and jihad terror is caused by poverty and solved by foreign aid and “outreach,” and on the other hand by those who recognize that there is a problem within Islam but maintain that moderate Islam and moderate Muslims are the solution, and should be the focus of our counter-terror efforts. The former point of view is, of course, that of George W. Bush and much of the Republican establishment, as well as the Democrats. The latter point of view is that of the rest of the Republican establishment — many Fox hosts, CPAC, etc.

Still, there have always been a few of us who have never jumped onto the “moderate Islam is the solution” bandwagon. We have recognized, often with regret, that Muslim reformists have had scant success. I myself have always invited Muslims who sincerely reject jihad and Sharia supremacism to join with me, but I’ve never gone out of my way to court Muslim reformers or considered my work illegitimate if it didn’t have their imprimatur. And so we come to Zuhdi Jasser, whom I debated a few years ago about the prospects for Islamic reform; you can see the debate here. Recently I ran a piece here at Jihad Watch by Stephen M. Kirby, noting the failure of Jasser’s overtures to mosques in the U.S. Although he acknowledges the truth of its main point, this article has enraged Jasser, and so he has taken to his show at The Blaze to record an hour-long rant entitled “Alt-Jihadists: Useful Idiots of the Global Islamist Establishment.”

“Rant” is an overused word these days; any statement that someone doesn’t like is a “rant.” But Jasser’s show really is one. It has to be heard to be believed. He can scarcely contain his hot rage as he rambles, with a tendency to repetitiveness that rivals that of the Qur’an itself, through this hour-long broadside against the people on his enemies list. Now mind you, he is doing this on his Blaze radio show; none of his detractors, as far as I know, have a radio show on The Blaze. He is regularly on Fox News and other media outlets, is inundated with speaking invitations, and is the darling of the conservative establishment. His detractors appear only sporadically on Fox or elsewhere, and when we’re invited to speak somewhere there are usually protests and attempts, sometimes successful, to get cowardly authorities to cancel our appearances. Jasser is a man who is regularly fawned over by those who love what he represents for them: a Muslim who is indeed a loyal, patriotic, anti-Sharia American. His detractors are routinely mocked, defamed, and vilified in the establishment media, and seldom defended in the conservative media. In other words, “Alt-Jihadists: Useful Idiots of the Global Islamist Establishment” is the lashing-out of a privileged man, determined to destroy those who have dared to challenge him.

Jasser’s Blaze show, by the way, is called “Reform This!” Isn’t that an extremely odd title? Isn’t the expression “____ This” a declaration of contempt for whatever is being referred to? As in, if someone says “You should brush your teeth” and you say “Brush this,” aren’t you being contemptuous of the request? And with the gesture that usually goes along with this, obscene as well? Why would Jasser choose such a title for his show?

Anyway, Jasser announces that he is “going to coin a new term…And I’m going to call it alt-jihadism.” The “alt-jihad is exploiting the idea of jihad in order to become powerful and in order to marginalize any solutions within the house of Islam.” Indeed, “there are no greater jihadists than the alt-jihadists when it comes to living in the land of freedom. Because they seem to be wanting to kill us and knock us off at the knees.” Who are these horrible alt-jihadists? Jasser names Stephen Kirby, John Guandolo, Diana West, Clare Lopez, Andrew Bostom, Pamela Geller and me. We are, he says, “channeling Wahhabis, by channeling the Muslim Brotherhood supremacists, by channeling the Khomeinists and saying this is what they would say, they basically dance on our graves.” The graves, that is, of Muslim reformers.

How are we doing this? By noting that they have had little success, and that their view of Islam is outside the Islamic tradition and mainstream understanding of the Qur’an and Sunnah. But Jasser is somewhat confused: he acknowledges that to say that “Dr. Jasser’s interpretation would be apostasy in Saudi Arabia…would be fact.” He also admits that his view “would be apostasy in Iran” and that “the Brotherhood would marginalize.” But he is angry that Kirby has the “temerity” as a “non-Muslim” to say that Jasser’s interpretation of various Qur’anic passages is incorrect. He adds later that there are “scholars that have written about interpretations of Islam that can be modernised, that can be held compatible with Western thought. Do they have influence in al-Azhar or Saudi universities? No. But far be it for the Shura Council of Geller, West, Kirby, Spencer, Bostom and others to tell us Muslims how to read the Koranic Arabic or interpret it.” This reflects the Islamic supremacist view that only Muslims can truly understand the Qur’an and Islam. It also raises the question of where the Saudis and Iranians and Muslim Brotherhood would get the idea that Jasser was an apostate and a heretic, if not from the Qur’an and Sunnah. But for Jasser, to point this out is to claim that there is only “one form of Islam, which is jihadist Islam,” and to deny the Islam of reformers such as “King Abdullah, General Sisi and others.” (Jasser doesn’t mention the fact that Sisi’s call for reform in Islam has not come to anything whatsoever in the years since he issued it.) It is, he says,

the dream of the king of Saudi Arabia, it’s the dream of the Khomeinists to have these kinds of allies like Spencer and Guandolo working with them. What better shariah activists do you want than the blabberings of Diana West, who says that this is Islam, it’s the only Islam? Than the writings of the Shia jihadists and the Sunni jihadists who might as well be writing under the pen name of John Guandolo. That says that Islam is only one Islam and it is a shariah supremacist Islam. He might as well be ready to be chopping the heads off of Muslim reformers in Saudi Arabia. That’s what they say before they put them in the chop shop. To cut their hands because they say there is one Islam and it’s in the Koran, it says cut your hands. Now I can give you many reformers who have been dissidents and put in jail who have believed otherwise. Are they not Muslims? The Shura Council passed the fatwas, it seems, and they’re coming – they’re coming hand over fist in the past few weeks from these so-called Islamic scholars who want to tell you there’s only one Islam. We’re ready to have that debate. Yes, we are dissidents. Yes, we are a minority. But to say that we don’t even have room to have an opinion or that we are – that they should be dancing on our grave is not only un-American, it actually is endorsing blasphemy laws. It is saying that our speech is useless because it is deceptive or taqiyya. It is jihadist and there are no greater jihadists than the alt-jihadists when it comes to living in the land of freedom. Because they seem to be wanting to kill us and knock us off at the knees. Despite the progress that we make.

This echoes the Obama nonsense about how we can’t call the Islamic jihad Islamic jihad, because doing so will validate and empower the jihadists — as if the jihadists were just waiting for non-Muslim authorities to say what Islam is and isn’t. In reality, the king of Saudi Arabia and the Khomeinists in Iran couldn’t care less what non-Muslim analysts such as John Guandolo and me say. They aren’t looking to us for validation. But Jasser says that because we note that the Islam of Saudi Arabia and Iran and other Sharia states has a firm basis in the Qur’an and Sunnah and Islamic jurisprudence, “the alt-jihad wants to basically articulate and do the work of the Wahhabis. They become proxies for jihadists. That’s why they’re the alt-jihad.” Jasser claims that we “parrot the ideas of Saudi Arabia and Salafi jihadism, militant Islam as the only Islam, as the Islam and reformers as heretics and commit takfir against us and tell us that we are not Muslims, no different than the judges of Iran and Saudi Arabia and ISIS tell us that we’re not Muslims. It’s the same.” We are, you see, “useful idiots for the global Islamic movements. For the shariah states of the world.” Hence we are jihadists ourselves, “alt-jihadists.” And “when the alt-jihadists claim that the mafia of Islam, the kings and dictators of the fifty-six Muslim countries are the only Islam, they are the useful idiots of the Islamic mafia.” Every last ruler of 56 Muslim countries has Islam wrong? Jasser doesn’t explain how this odd situation came about.

His labeling us “jihadists” for this is as incoherent as it is grotesque. On the one hand, Jasser admits that Muslim reformers are “dissidents” and a “minority,” and that he would be seen as an apostate in Saudi Arabia and Iran, but then he likens us to jihadists for pointing out the same thing. The difference between him and those whom he smears as “alt-jihadists” is apparently, in his view, that we see him as non-Muslim and say that there is no chance for Islamic reform. As far as I am concerned, that is a false charge (and none of the other people on his enemies list think these things either, as far as I know). I’d love to see Islamic reform succeed. I’m just not willing to kid myself or others about its prospects, or pretend that it has a greater standing in Islamic doctrine or tradition than it does. But for this, as far as Jasser is concerned, I am now as much of a jihadist as the caliph al-Baghdadi. The idea that because someone recognizes the ideological roots of a movement, he must support that movement, is of course absurd. Did Churchill support Nazism because he recognized that Nazi German society was a valid expression of Nazi beliefs as Hitler had articulated them? Was he a “useful idiot” for Hitler? The claim that we are any kind of “jihadists,” whatever the “alt” prefix is supposed to mean, should be the end of anyone taking Zuhdi Jasser seriously as a coherent thinker. But it won’t, for two reasons: our views, as correct as they are, are unpalatable to those in power on all points of the political spectrum, and Jasser is still that most coveted of commodities, a “moderate Muslim.”

Jasser includes a practical argument: “So how is that I’m the lying jihadist [who ever said that?], but when the yin to the yang of jihad, which says, yes, the jihad is the only Islam, calls them out with no solution other than eternal war against twenty-five percent of the world’s population or a plan to convert them?” (Yes, his show is just as incoherent as that.) This is a common argument: we have to support the Muslim reformers because there is no other solution: we can’t have eternal war and the vast majority of Muslims aren’t going to convert to Christianity, so it’s the only alternative. The problem with this is that supporting Muslim reformers lines the pockets of Muslim reformers, but it really doesn’t do anything to stop the jihad. In reality, we need a comprehensive response to the global jihad that includes standing for our own principles as a nation: if we really had offered the people of Iraq and Afghanistan the freedom of speech, equality of rights for women, equality of rights of all before the law, etc., many Muslims would have come to our side. Instead, we offered them Sharia. There are many viable strategies, most completely untested, for resisting the global jihad, but in the fifteen years since 9/11 it has become clear that supporting Muslim reformers is nice identity politics and makes some people feel as if they’ve headed off charges of “racism” and “Islamophobia” from the Left, but where are the Muslims who are saying, “I supported the jihad and was about to join ISIS until I heard Dr. Jasser”? There are no such people. Jasser mentions Raheel Raza; she spoke after me at an event in Toronto last year, and said that she read the Qur’an every morning and denounced terrorism. That’s very nice, but all it did was confuse the audience about the ways in which Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims. Is Raheel Raza going to jihadis and explaining to them how they’re misreading the Qur’an? Somehow I doubt it. This is “reform” we have to support or else be likened to jihad mass murderers? Include me out.

Jasser recommends the writings of some Muslim reformers: Muhammad Sa’id al-‘Ashmawy, Fatema Mernissi, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, Abdurrahman Wahid, and Alija Izetbegovic. His endorsement of the latter shows the hazards of the whole Islamic reform enterprise. Izetbegovic is the author of The Islamic Declaration, which he wrote in 1970. In it, Izetbegovic says: “Muslim nations will never accept anything that is explicitly against Islam…He who rises against Islam will reap nothing but hate & resistance…” And: “The first & foremost of such conclusions is surely the one on the incompatibility of Islam & non-Islamic systems. There can be no peace or co-existence between the ‘Islamic faith’ & non-Islamic societies & political institutions…” And: “The Islamic movement should & must start taking over the power as soon as it is morally & numerically strong enough to not only overthrow the existing non-Islamic, but also to build up a new Islamic authority…” Izetbegovic declared that “means of mass influence — the press, radio, television and film — should be in the hands of people whose Islamic, moral, and intellectual authority is indisputable.” He called for the banning of “casinos, night clubs, dance halls and all other forms of entertainment incompatible with the moral tenets of Islam.”

That’s Islamic reform, as far as Jasser is concerned? Of course, he will say he endorses Izetbegovic’s other writings and not this one, but Izetbegovic himself never repudiated The Islamic Declaration. In 1996, the New York Times quoted a “senior Western diplomat” saying: “If you read President Izetbegovic’s writings, as I have, there is no doubt that he is an Islamic fundamentalist. He is a very nice fundamentalist, but he is still a fundamentalist. This has not changed. His goal is to establish a Muslim state in Bosnia, and the Serbs and the Croats understand this better than the rest of us.”

If that’s the best “reformer” that Zuhdi Jasser can come up with, how can we not be skeptical? It’s no wonder that Zuhdi Jasser, with his Blaze program, and his CPAC speech, and his Fox appearances, and the uncritical adulation of so very many non-Muslims on the Right, is feeling insecure and threatened: his position is incoherent, and somewhere in his heart of hearts, even he knows it. And so not content with all the fame and fawning and financial advantages, he lashes out against the few remaining people who dare to challenge him on the facts, desperate to destroy us. He is in this doomed to fail as spectacularly as he has in trying to reform Islam, because there is just one weapon we have that he does not: the truth.

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: claiming victim status, Islamic reform, Moderate Muslims, War is deceit Tagged With: Zuhdi Jasser


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. IQ al Rassooli says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 3:50 pm

    Has anyone ever asked the FAKE Media and Politicians WHAT RACE are Muslims?

    Muslims are against Trump because he is PROTECTING Americans from Muslim TERRORISTS and they are NOT happy

    Of course Muslims are not happy. Muslims are NEVER happy. Muslims are ONLY happy when non Muslims are either submitting to Sharia or are EXTERMINATED

    Keith Ellison is a Muslim who swore his Oath of Allegiance to the USA on the Quran, the very NEMESIS of all that the USA and non Muslim Americans stand for. What an incredible travesty and duplicity.

    Dear American KUFFAR, please always remember that as Infidels/ Kuffar/ Non Muslims, you are NOT the only ones targeted for Subjugation to Sharia or EXTERMINATION by Muslims (Arabs or otherwise) hence it is VITAL that you realize that one does not need more than two brain cells of logic to understand Muslims and Islam in a nutshell~

    Since every Muslim is Sharia compliant, every Muslim cannot ever be a Law abiding LOYAL citizen in ANY non Muslim nation because these nations do not submit to Allah’s Sharia.

    Hence every Muslim is the enemy of every non Muslim Infidel/ Kafir on planet Earth (80% of current humanity)

    Every Muslim is a potential Mass Murderer the instant he/ she decides that he/she is NOT Sharia compliant enough. (Not ALL Muslims are Terrorists but 100% of Terrorists against Infidels are MUSLIMS)

    Every Muslim is therefore a hair trigger Time Bomb primed to go off

    Only in the WARPED imagination of leftists can one find Moderate Militant Radical or Extremist Muslims because in reality Muslims are Muslims just as Nazis are Nazis and no one ever addressed Nazis as Moderate Militant Radical or Extremist

    Therefore, because Sharia prohibits them, no Muslim can ever be LOYAL to the laws or the peoples who are Infidels/ Kuffar

    All other explanations are superfluous and redundant

    It is time for every decent and patriotic American to unshackle yourselves from the pre conceived but erroneous notions that ANYONE who is not a Muslim can make PEACE with Islam. All anyone in doubt has to do is READ only chapters 1 to 9 of Muhammad’s Quran

    Keeping Americans SAFE from MUSLIM terrorists was among others one of the PRIMARY reasons WHY DJ Trump was elected President in the first place. He is only fulfilling what he PROMISED “We the People” he would do. If Keith Ellison is elected as head of the Democratic Party, it will be their willful self-destruction for the foreseeable future

    In summation: To HELL with so called Human Rights, Civil Liberties, ACLU, ISNA, CAIR and associated TRAITORS in the USA!

    IQ al Rassooli
    Kafir & Proud!
    http://www.alrassooli.com
    MAGA & DTS!

    • Jack says

      Mar 14, 2017 at 4:11 pm

      IQ: A most excellent post, well stated but the most important thing about it is it’s 100% Truth.

      • Woody says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 10:16 am

        Yes sir

      • JIMJFOX says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 11:41 am

        All sites/blogs/videos of IQ al Rassooli are taken down, unavailable, whatever.
        The jihad against him is effective, with the help of You Tube; his videos were excellent
        but of course, “Truth is the new Hate Speech”, is it not?

        • JIMJFOX says

          Mar 15, 2017 at 11:46 am

          Sorry, incorrect; the link he gives is fine with onward links to other sites/pages of his.
          Can’t find his video series, though- shame, wonderful speaker.

    • bonnie louise loranger says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 8:19 am

      thank you Al Rasooli. I was just accused recently by a leftist of being RACIST because I told her that all muslims are a danger to us. Even though I told he that Islam is not a race she did not believe me .She was screaming to the top of her head
      I have read your books and I totally agree with you Al Razooli

      • Carolyne says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 11:11 am

        Leftists never listen. They always “Scream to the top of,”their “head,” I suppose the philosophy is that if you scream loud enough you won’t be able to hear the truth so you are safe from it. I have seen these people on FOX all the time. If I were the moderator, I would just have their microphones cut off, but the moderators seem patient–much more so that I would be. I have no patience with fools

      • IQ al Rassooli says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 3:54 pm

        Dear ALL

        Find out which leftist can disprove the attached video~

        This should be shown on Hannity or any other conservative TV show because it utterly destroys the FALSE mantra of ‘peaceful Muslims’ forever

        Please spread the following 6 minutes video PROVING that Muslims will NEVER be LOYAL citizens anywhere NOT Islamic

        This video has more than one million views already

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJnW8HRHLLw&t=2s

        IQ al Rassooli
        Kafir & Proud!

    • Aniruddha says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 11:04 am

      Well said. I am a Hindu from India, a kafir and proud. Even as I write this, sundry ‘moderate’ Muslims are appearing on prime time Indian TV and arguing for the right to pass a religious edict called fatwa against a young muslim girl whose only crime is to sing a song at a program that was seen to be anti-isis. The irony? These are the same people who claim to be moderate Muslims. Which brings me to the simple truth. There is no moderation in Islam. It’s just a veil behind which they hide when they are in a minority, and remove it to show their true jehadist face when they get the numbers.

    • UNCLE VLADDI says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 11:30 pm

      Well said, Sir!

      Since to muslims their Qur’an is the PERFECT word of God, it cannot be improved on – so who needs any laws made by merely human legislators (or even human legislators or governors or governments or even countries, which after all are really only man-made false idols, to be eventually destroyed and replaced by the one-world global muslim Ummah, and ruled by the theocratic Caliphate government)?!

      Islam is sedition. “Submission” is only an euphemism for slavery.

      ISLAM IS SLAVERY.

      Period!

    • LR says

      Mar 16, 2017 at 3:01 am

      “Every Muslim is therefore a hair trigger Time Bomb primed to go off.”

      No, this is not true. There are those people in the world who wish for peace and coexistence no matter what their religion. There are those cases where Muslims have saved Jewish lives when being persecuted by other Muslims. The most recent I know of is the deli Paris attacks in 2015.

      Remember the Paris Mosque in WW2?

      If we in the Western world want to uphold our culture which is based on respecting individual rights, then we better not sink into the same notion our enemies do…branding whole swaths of people based on their ‘otherness’, or religious group, rather than being able to see an individual for who they are.

      http://time.com/4651298/holocaust-memorial-day-muslims-jews/

      http://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/the-grand-mosque-of-paris-a-story-of-how-muslims-saved-jews-during-the-holocaust

  2. C T says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 4:10 pm

    You guys need to work together, you and Jasser. There are at least three groups (Quranists, Sufis, and Nizari Ismaili Shi’a) that have enough of a coherent religious philosophy to be considered Muslim and still compatible with human rights, and here at Jihad Watch, you’ve been too dismissive of them.
    Who do you want to win? The ones who will kill you and Jasser both and feel like they’re obeying their God? It’s time to work together against your common enemy.

    • Robert Spencer says

      Mar 14, 2017 at 4:12 pm

      You’re talking about a man who just likened me to mass murderers, beheaders, and rapists. Go lecture him about working together.

      • RichardL says

        Mar 14, 2017 at 4:45 pm

        you are really angry about this. I have always admired your generosity, humility and patience – still do. I think you are rightfully disappointed at ZJ.

        Zuhdi Jasser is panicking: he is realising that neither is he a Muslim nor is reform in islam possible. He still is a patriot and wants an a-political islam, I believe. He is also a better ally than my Pope, I am ashamed to say.

        Anyway: thanks for the wonderful work that gives me hope. Zuhdi Jasser owes you and the other anti-jihadi heroes an apology. I think he will get in touch.

      • john spielman says

        Mar 14, 2017 at 4:54 pm

        I agree with you Robert! There is nothing in common with light and darkness or with Christ and Satan/allah except the former will overcome the latter!

        If we try to accommodate islam,” moderate” or” peaceful” or what ever, we will lose, since muslims can and do LIE to us about their religion. islam sanctifies ( makes holy) lying to unbelievers as a way to gain advantage over them. Also islam always morphs into the more violent form overtime, as the more religious / fundamentalists intimidate the more moderates by the quranic passages and the hadiths which demand subjugation of unbelievers by force- ( muhmammed wasn’t called the “prophet with the sword” for nothing! Finally the only way for a muslim to be guaranteed paradise is to kill and be killed in battle against us unbelievers- so there is potential 1.5 billion suicide bombers that will make the Japanese kamikaze of WW2 look like a kindergarten picnic

        islam with all its evil and rottenness must be exposed to public scrutiny – it and shari law must be taught in all schools as a way to educate the sleeping populace to our

        • somehistory says

          Mar 14, 2017 at 6:07 pm

          We recognize that once a glass of water is poisoned, it is poisoned.

          islam is islam, it is what it is. It won’t be changed….not by jasser who is a liar as are all moslims taught to lie…nor by any other moslim.

          But it will be destroyed. That is the future of islam: destruction.

        • john spielman says

          Mar 14, 2017 at 7:01 pm

          oops, that should be “to educate the sleeping populace to our concerns”

        • IQ al Rassooli says

          Mar 15, 2017 at 3:55 pm

          This should be shown on Hannity or any other conservative TV show because it utterly destroys the FALSE mantra of ‘peaceful Muslims’ forever

          Please spread the following 6 minutes video PROVING that Muslims will NEVER be LOYAL citizens anywhere NOT Islamic
          This video has more than one million views already
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJnW8HRHLLw&t=2s
          IQ al Rassooli
          Kafir & Proud!

      • Terry Gain says

        Mar 14, 2017 at 11:35 pm

        Bravo. Jasser is a fraud. And by calling you an alt-Jihadist, he is trying to censor you. Very Islamic of him. Alt-jihadist! My goodness! Who did you ever kill?

      • George says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 3:03 am

        Rhetoric is rhetoric. You yourself liken people on the left to Fascists or “left-fascists” in your own words. Zhudi’s alt-Jihadist term falls in much the same category. Pot meet kettle.

        • Robert Spencer says

          Mar 15, 2017 at 11:03 am

          George:

          Not really. When Leftists move to limit the freedom of speech and allow for the airing of only one point of view, they are acting in a manner that is quintessentially fascist. However, as I explained in this article, Jasser’s labeling of me as a “jihadist” is not just libelous, but incoherent and idiotic.

        • George says

          Mar 15, 2017 at 10:14 pm

          Robert Spencer:

          Ok, but then calling him a Jihadist (stealth or otherwise) as Pamella does is just as ridiculous as well.

      • Woody says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 10:16 am

        Sir, you cannot reform dung.

      • Carolyne says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 11:24 am

        “Working together?” With a Muslim? What nonsense. Muslims have low intelligence because of centuries of incestuous breeding so they are not capable of rational thought. They think only of forcible sex and murder. They are obsessed with their 72 virgins and young boys like scattered pearls in their non-existent afterlife. And so they kill to be worthy of this wonderful reward, which to a sane person is ridiculous.

    • Wellington says

      Mar 14, 2017 at 5:28 pm

      Just substitute “Nazi” for “Muslim” and see how much sense your post makes, CT.

      Islam is a totalitarian ideology, as both Winston Churchill and Bertrand Russell noted in their own different ways about a century ago. Like all totalitarian ideologies Islam establishes an “us verses them” paradigm with the “them” relegated to second-class status or death in this world. Nazism does this with ethnic groups. Marxism with socio-economic groups (recently rejiggered by modern Leftists to race, hence the white privilege nonsense), and Islam does this with non-believers.

      There is no reforming rot like this. Not a chance. Think you could reform Nazism? Ditto for Islam. And so Jasser is at best a fool. At worst something worse than just a fool. Wise up.

      • Cornelius says

        Mar 14, 2017 at 10:22 pm

        Hey Wellington. For some reason, there was no “reply” mechanism on the thread where you posted, so I just wanted to thank you for the comments and the greeting. As usual, you are spot on.

        Just wanted to give you a head’s up….I’ll very soon be posting a tribute song to Robert on Youtube.

        Your Amigo,

        Cornelius.

      • bonnie louise loranger says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 8:27 am

        I totally agree. JZ is a fool. Islam cannot be reform. You cannot be a Patriot and a devote muslim together. JZ is lying to us and himself The only thing he can do is leave islam.
        Same for the ahmadis. I was invited by them and the man who spoke to us lied. I told him so and other people were mad at me. It is impossible to make peace with Islam. Islam needs to be eridicated

        • LR says

          Mar 16, 2017 at 6:19 am

          “It is impossible to make peace with Islam. Islam needs to be eridicated.”

          I’d like to know how you would do that?

    • Mo says

      Mar 14, 2017 at 7:31 pm

      @ C T

      “You guys need to work together, you and Jasser. There are at least three groups (Quranists, Sufis, and Nizari Ismaili Shi’a) that have enough of a coherent religious philosophy to be considered Muslim and still compatible with human rights, and here at Jihad Watch, you’ve been too dismissive of them.
      Who do you want to win? The ones who will kill you and Jasser both and feel like they’re obeying their God? It’s time to work together against your common enemy.”

      There is no “working together” with someone who has said the false and vile things this man has said here about Robert and others in the counter-jihad movement. How do you work together with someone who thinks and says such things about you?

      The only Islam that counts is the Islam of the Quran and other Islamic texts and that Mohammad preached and practiced.

      • Dachtor Strange says

        May 24, 2017 at 2:55 am

        Absolutely correct. Unless you want a forever war, military response cannot be the only response. We must wage a psychological war to force reformation of Islam. It will have to be fostered here and in Europe until it stands on its own two feet, and it will take a long time to export it to the homes of Islamic Extremism/Jihadism in the Near East, Iran, and Southwest Asia.

    • mgoldberg says

      Mar 14, 2017 at 9:32 pm

      Robert just got there quicker than I… he was compared to the worst of the worst… why sell him on the notion of moderate? Sufi’s are ‘mystically’ oriented, but they support Mohammed all the way when asked.
      Just check out Jala al din Rumi, the great ‘love’ poet of Sufism. He was a supporter of Mohammed all the way. That is the gentle submission of all others, If I get his message. The other groups Ive heard about but they are not to my knowledge marching down the street of anywhere demanding Jihad murderers be caught and punished for homicidism. Or anything else.

    • Lorna Salzman says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 12:42 pm

      I tend to agree because in my own field (environmental activism) there are divergences of opinion on how to solve problems. Uniformity of opinion and the demanding of absolute adherence to one point of view in a broad movement that needs to address a diverse public is neither possible nor desirable. My support of AIFD was based solely on his dedication to educating Muslims on the need for separation of mosque and state. This actually means educating Muslims to become secular in their daily life and religious in their private life, and to accept secular civil society laws. If this could be accomplished, many of the problems we see of non-assimilation of Muslims and radical demagoguery would disappear, and eventually most Muslims in this country would become outwardly secular and not subject to exploitation by extremists. I haven’t listened to any of Jasser’s podcasts so I am not privy to
      more details of his statements. But I do believe he is playing an important role, and a thankless one too given that religious Muslims shun him. Not everyone has to take a hard line and no movement should seek to impose uniformity of thought. Of course I don’t doubt that Jasser has a dialogue with himself because he sincerely wants to follow the Islamic faith but has equal if not stronger dedication to democracy and freedom and the Constitution. This conflict has not yet been resolved by him. Who knows whether in fact he might change his approach at some point? But in any case it is not a good idea to dismiss someone who is sincere and who has placed himself out in the open at great personal risk. At this point he deserves our respect even if we disagree with his tactics.

  3. Troybeam says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 4:17 pm

    Jasser is trying very hard to find a way to reform Islam, such a mountain to climb to do so, sadly he knows that Islam cannot be reformed as it is decreed in Islam that to change it’s contents in any way means death, he’d be better off leaving Islam and speaking the bitter truth of its political nature leaving out any religious mentions for Islam has none.

    • MTMLA says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 4:35 am

      Jasser never made any sense to me. How can you reform and make better something that is ROTTEN to the core since its origins? A good analogy is a plate with a totally rotten steak. How can you make it into a good, edible steak? NEVER ! It IS a rotten steak and it will never be a good steak. The only solution is to throw it away. The same with Islam. When a person really knows how rotten and evil Islam is from its beginnings with Mohammad, the dictates of the Koran,its history of violence, why would you want to still be part of it, changes or not. Rather, if you had a chance to make a safe choice, why would you still want to remain a Muslim? In my view he is a fake practicing takia.

      • traci94 says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 9:18 am

        “When a person really knows how rotten and evil Islam is from its beginnings with Mohammad, the dictates of the Koran,its history of violence, why would you want to still be part of it, changes or not.”

        Exactly!! Well said.

      • Linnte says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 8:04 pm

        That is my exact stand on Jasser too. There is absolutely nowhere for him to go-to he’s stuck in a raunchy ideology. So I am making it a point to pray that he finally does what I know he needs to do; repent of Islam and accept Jesus as his Savior. Turning to Jesus is his ONLY option. I think quite a few Muslims are seeing this. I pray it is so.

  4. Jack says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 4:32 pm

    I’ve never trusted Jasser for one reason, he’s a Muslim. Almost 1400 years should be long enough to understand what the adherents of this Fascist Ideology is all about.

    • RichardL says

      Mar 14, 2017 at 4:47 pm

      It is not Fascist. Fascism was forward-looking and allied with Futurism.

      islam is a totalitarian ideology.

      • Wellington says

        Mar 14, 2017 at 6:17 pm

        Fascism was forward-looking? How so? The Founding Fathers of America, who constructed the Constitution, which a future Prime Minister of the UK, William Gladstone, called “the greatest document ever created by man,” were forward looking. Fascists, at best, have tried to preserve the status quo because the alterative was just another tyranny or idiocy. Think Franco here.

        How in the hell were fascists forward looking? My God man, don’t you at all comprehend that fascism, like Islam, is a totalitarian ideology? Fascism denies a multi-party system. Fascism insures no freedom of the press. No freedom of speech in general. Oh yeah, how in the hell is fascism forward-looking? One would be hard pressed to find anything more backward-looking than fascism.

        Please detail. Give it a shot.

        • IQ al Rassooli says

          Mar 14, 2017 at 6:19 pm

          Please spread the following video PROVING in 6 minutes that Muslims will NEVER be LOYAL citizens anywhere NOT Islamic

          This video has more than one million views already

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJnW8HRHLLw&t=2s

          IQ al Rassooli
          Kafir & Proud!

        • RichardL says

          Mar 15, 2017 at 4:12 am

          Fascism and Nazism are very different. One is an ideology, the other not. I am talking about political theory. However, on a practical level counter jihadis need to be precise and calling islam totalitarian may not sounds so sexy but it is more truthful.

        • Wellington says

          Mar 15, 2017 at 12:14 pm

          “Fascism and Nazism are very different.”

          Nope, not really. Nazism is simply a German version of fascism.

      • Scott says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 2:59 am

        Fascism was a totalitarian idea as well. Let’s not go to the “fake news” well on this one.

        • RichardL says

          Mar 15, 2017 at 4:29 am

          sure, fascism is a totalitarian idea. That’s my point. But that comparison breaks down too early because fascism had elements like futurism (which was very strong in fascist art) that differentiate it from islam.

        • ECAW says

          Mar 15, 2017 at 4:51 am

          Richard – I fail to see a significant difference between Fascism and Nazism or that one is an ideology and one not. Please enlighten us.

  5. Cornelius says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 4:50 pm

    I’ve always been a supporter of Jasser. How completely disappointing that he has viciously attacked the core of the anti-Jihad.

    I do have a comment about something Robert has written….

    >In reality, we need a comprehensive response to the global jihad that includes standing for our own principles as a nation:

    I ask in all sincerity, is this possible? For example, how can we stop Muslim immigration – an essential component of preventing the Islamization of America – without resorting to religious discrimination? How can we monitor mosques – an essential component in monitoring radicalized Muslims – without resorting to religious profiling?

    I always refer to Robert as “our fearless leader”…..and I do so with sincerity and respect….but I have yet to witness him answer these crucial questions. His reasons could be tactical…he doesn’t want to give ammunition to his detractors, which I completely understand. On the other hand, the question remains….how do we construct “a comprehensive response to the global jihad that includes standing for our own principles as a nation”:

    • RichardL says

      Mar 14, 2017 at 5:00 pm

      you separate between islam the religion and its political aspects, that’s how. Everything that happens in the polis, i.e. in public or has an impact on the public is forbidden. No mosques, no koran-selling, no salafi uniforms, no headscarves. Headbanging at home is fine, but beating your wife is not.

      Yes, that means that islam has to be singled out. That’s easy: it singles itself out because it is supremacist.

      • Cornelius says

        Mar 14, 2017 at 5:12 pm

        >you separate between islam the religion and its political aspects

        And how do we make such a distinction when it comes to admitting Muslim immigrants?

      • james.mich says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 2:50 am

        No such separation is possible, because Islam makes no such distinction. It is both “Church” and ‘State’ in one, because that is what it is revealed in the Koran to be. And there is no-one on earth with the authority to change Islam from being what it has been revealed to be. Such a change or distinction or reform would not result in a purer, reformed Islam, but in a pseudo-Islam, that existed for no better reason than to alleviate the objections of us kuffar. It would be as fake as a Catholicism without the authority to teach Catholic doctrine. Turning Islam into a sort of Anglican Islam, with the secular or kaffir state having the last word, is not workable. Islam has been reformed – that is what Wahhabism is, a reform, one that holds no comfort for us kuffar.

        • RichardL says

          Mar 15, 2017 at 4:47 am

          of course you cannot easily separate it, but getting it right doesn’t have to be scientifically precise. Salomon didn’t want to cut the baby in half.

          Immigration is an issue, Cornelius, and the clean solution would be to stop immigration, but I would think we can make fairly good educated guesses when it comes to people. I would certainly not let people in who like like the San Bernadino couple. In doubt, don’t let them in.

    • RonaldB says

      Mar 14, 2017 at 5:17 pm

      “how can we stop Muslim immigration – … – without resorting to religious discrimination?”

      You have to look at the Constitution itself. The applicable phrase is “Congress shall make no law…respecting the establishment of religion”.

      In other words, no state religion and no state support of religion. You can easily make a law saying that no person with a philosophy that denies the validity of the present means of constitutional law and lawmaking can be admitted as an immigrant. Totally within any reasonable reading of the Constitution.

      “How can we monitor mosques – … – without resorting to religious profiling?”

      That’s even easier. There is no provision of the Constitution even remotely giving religion a pass on reasonable monitoring. In fact, it’s the other way around. To specifically exclude religious establishments from reasonable (justified) surveillance, is to give them favored treatment under the law, which is most certainly on the face of it, unconstitutional.

      • Cornelius says

        Mar 14, 2017 at 6:10 pm

        >You can easily make a law saying that no person with a philosophy that denies the validity of the present means of constitutional law and lawmaking can be admitted as an immigrant.

        What if the Muslim immigrant in question insists he believes in separation of church and state? How could we justify refusing him entry? What’s to prevent every Muslim immigrant, regardless of his actual beliefs, to make such a claim?

        • Wellington says

          Mar 14, 2017 at 6:53 pm

          You’ve raised great questions, Cornelius. Very pertinent ones.

          I continue to think, as I have for a very long time now, that as long as Islam is not accurately described, overwhelmingly and very publicly so, including by the vast majority of the still clueless Western elites in the political realm, the media and academia, for the turd in the punch bowl of world religions which Islam surely is, the Great Pretend Game (GPG), by which Islam is accorded respect and status as all other major religions are, will continue to play out to the detriment of freedom most everywhere.

          Accuracy is key here. But even this won’t be enough because constitutional and legal systems in the West aplenty were never set up in the first place to effectively deal with a religion which is inimical to its core to basic Western values. The implicit assumption was made when the West over the centuries was establishing religious freedom (and freedom in general), as no other civilization remotely has, that all major religions are OK in their essential theological blueprint. But they aren’t. Islam is the odd man out here. One knows this or should know this. You do. I do. Many still don’t, including that annoying excuser for malevolence, one Zuhdi Jasser, though I find him sincere in his beliefs. Would be better, though, if he weren’t since a sincere fool is nine times out of ten more harmful than a malicious fool.

          And so new legal tactics and strategy must be initiated to deal with the great fallacy of a religion which is Islam. It will certainly have to include statutory innovations, perhaps in many cases even basic constitutional ones. Much work to be done if freedom is to survive, courtesy of the worst religion ever created by man. And the Paul Ryans and John McCains out there, never mind the ever stupendously stupid Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, are not even close to being up to the task. Donald Trump’s instincts about Islam are correct, but proper instincts won’t be enough. Keen and accurate knowledge are imperative as well. Still a long way away from forming a proper defense against the abysmal belief system which is Islam, which in full parasitic mode will, I have not doubt whatsoever, use freedom in order to destroy it if only given the chance. The Zuhdi Jassers out there thus function as just one more hindrance to effectively dealing with arguably the most mortal threat to liberty of all time.

          Hope you and family are well. Always good to see your postings here at JW. Take care, pal.

        • RonaldB says

          Mar 15, 2017 at 10:08 am

          To Wellington:

          One of the things I enjoy about your posts is that you look for legal and Constitutional avenues to accomplish protection from Islam. My own views are perhaps somewhat different from yours, but your path is the one we must follow. We must look to the Constitution itself and the reasonable interpretation of constitutional law to protect the country and our culture.

          I think there’s as much a danger from globalists and internationalists as from Muslims. In fact, they use each other. Once they destroy our country, they will undoubtedly fight to the death themselves. I have no interest in which will win, probably the Muslims from past history.

          The point is, the internationalists and the cultural Marxists have expanded the legal interpretations of Constitutional mandates so as to take away all the tools the country has to protect itself. An example would be the court injunctions on the Trump travel bans. The court injunctions are illegal on their face, because the law, not simply the general Constitution, clearly states the Executive has the absolute power to ban entry into the country of any persons he deems a security threat, without review.

          I’m very uncomfortable with the idea of redefining the legal definition of religions, like Islam, rather than tackling the general question of the legal privilege of religion. Once you fiddle with the bedrock rights of Americans, like the rights of free expression, because the philosophy is abhorrent, it’s not far at all from banning criticism of religion, including and especially criticism of Islam.

          I would like to see conferences, or even university courses, focused on Constitutional means of protecting US citizens and US culture. Wouldn’t that generate some delicious debates?

      • balafama says

        Mar 14, 2017 at 6:25 pm

        RonaldB,

        did you forget the part of the constitution that says congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion ”or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. won’t mandated mosque monitoring be doing that?

        • RonaldB says

          Mar 14, 2017 at 11:39 pm

          Who said anything about “mandated” mosque monitoring?

          I’m simply saying that religious institutions, including mosques, should not be exempt from ordinary police investigation, even undercover. The New York City police had an undercover presence in some mosques. Muslims predictably caused a fuss, and the effort was abandoned.

          But, this is simply having an undercover presence at public functions, like mosque prayers. How is this preventing the practice of Muslim prayer? I think there would be no dampening effect on individuals who are not committing criminal acts.

          In my opinion, there should be no laws for or against religious practices. I think either is unconstitutional, and staying within the Constitution, as written, is very important to me.

          I do not believe the bill of rights, or any provision of the Constitution, applies to non-citizens who are not legally in the US. It is not preventing the legal practice of Islam by Muslim citizens to not allow in additional Muslim immigrants. Those are two different things.

        • Troybeam says

          Mar 15, 2017 at 6:57 pm

          Article 6, Constitution, is law of the land, a nation cannot have 2 different set of laws operating: Constitution for all then you have sharia law: applies only to Muslims: Islam is a political movement to think otherwise and not research sharia would be an error on your part.

      • james.mich says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 2:57 am

        Which is fine, if we are discussing Islam in the US. But the US is only one non-Muslim country in the West, and the West is only a part of the non-Muslim world.

        A first step might be, to make very clear that the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, a Muslim document, differs at many points from the UN Charter on Human Rights to which many non-Muslim countries are signatories.

    • billybob says

      Mar 14, 2017 at 6:08 pm

      @Cornelius – I would like to take a stab at replying to your comment…

      You pose some questions, followed by “I always refer to Robert as “our fearless leader”…..and I do so with sincerity and respect….but I have yet to witness him answer these crucial questions.”

      I think you expect too much of Robert. He is not “our fearless leader”. Rather, he is our respected teacher. He gives us the fruits of his decades of research, in easily digestible form, with dailey examples. A better teacher we could not ask for.

      I don’t think he has ever ventured into the realm of pretending he has “the answer”, only that I’m sure he would say that the answer, whatever it is, begins with accurate information of the problem domain. From there it is up to us to take that information provided and run with it.

      Your concern about how to respond to the jihad threat while maintaining, not only our humanity, but also our values, resonates with my similar concerns. From time to time, half answers as substantial as wisps of smoke form in my mind, then vanish as quickly as they come. Even so, I continue to ask myself these questions with every article I read. Perhaps some day some concrete thoughts will emerge and I will carry them forward to the next step, whatever that could be.

    • vlparker says

      Mar 14, 2017 at 8:44 pm

      You’re joking, right? Somehow, when the founders passed the Bill of Rights I don’t think they had in mind the protection of a religion that mandates sedition and the overthrow of the US government. Islam itself violates the establishment clause by mandating an Islamic government. So, using the religious freedom argument, we are supposed to allow the practice of a religion that wants to eradicate all other religions and make sharia the supreme law of the land usurping the US Constitution?

      If Hitler had had the foresight to call Nazism a religion, claim that it was revealed to him by an angel, said that Aryans were God’s chosen people and that the Jews were enemies of God, there are no doubt some people in the US today who would be falling all over themselves to give Nazism religious protection too.

      • RonaldB says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 10:17 am

        I think there are two equally valid parts of the First Amendment.

        1) No law concerning the establishment of religion. My interpretation is that religions are not to be given a special privilege. They obey the same laws everyone does. For instance, though I have nothing against Jehovah’s Witnesses, I believe it was a Constitutional error for the courts to have allowed them to not say the Pledge. Any exemption should have been legislative, and should have concerned a general belief, rather than religious exemption.

        2) or preventing the free practice thereof. This does present a limitation on treatment of Muslim citizens, and should be respected, however abhorrent we find their beliefs. However, Constitutional provisions do not apply to non-US citizens, and anti-Democratic Islamic doctrine can easily be singled out as a basis to deny immigration or naturalization. Plus, naturalization can be made provisional for a reasonable time, say 20 or 30 years, so if a previous Muslim “backslides”, he can be assumed to have been lying and treated as an alien rather than a citizen.

    • mgoldberg says

      Mar 14, 2017 at 10:18 pm

      When we point to Nazi’s, we directly prohibit their religious belief. Why not merely sift and winnow thru the theology and history of the theology, and culture as say, Robert does- Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts.
      But it’s not specifically pointing to say, Nazi ideology, as abominable, tyrannic, murderous that is so desperately needed, nor directly pointing to Jihad ideology and history- it is merely to understand the rights, privileges and obligations of our political and religious heritage. This has been shamed for the last four or fives decades and needs to be firmed and sourced with the appropriate reevaluation that will show the genuinely constructive federal republics history and development. Individual responsibility and individual freedom as core principles, etc etc etc. But I’ve digressed: hell, disallowing any section of the world’s people from migrating is entirely legal and necessary, and religious comparisons as to how destructive or violent a minority of people may become, is certainly reason enough to shadow an entire group, or religion. No one expects a christian ‘fundamentalist’ to cut someone’s head off. It is entirely possible they might bore someone to death but that is hardly criminal. A devout christian won’t end or maim your life. A ‘devout’ muslim may very well choose to follow the ‘Jihad’ path and maim, slaughter, mutilate with malice aforethought with something entirely against the freedoms and liberties and responsibilities that this nation was founded upon and for which this nation should and does stand.

    • MTMLA says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 4:40 am

      Call Islam correctly a political ideology/ theocracy and not a religion.

    • 7Delta says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 8:56 pm

      how can we stop Muslim immigration – an essential component of preventing the Islamization of America – without resorting to religious discrimination?</i?

      It's quite simple, Cornelius. The U.S. Constitution is NOT a global document. Its authority exists only within U.S. jurisdiction. No one outside U.S. jurisdiction has any Constitutional protections, rights or privileges, not even U.S. citizens, while they are within the jurisdiction of another sovereign country. Citizens abroad who may be in need of help may get such aid from the State Dept., but that's diplomatic, not an extension of the Constitution's authority.

      Aliens within U.S. jurisdiction have limited civil protections. Only citizens have both the civil and political aspects of citizenship, but no one has the right to commit treason, sedition or subversion.

      The Constitution, common sense and SCOTUS decided long ago that "religion" is not an excuse to break our laws, infringe on the unalienable rights of others or to seek to overthrow and undermine the government. We have no obligation to accept practices or ideologies, under the guise of religion, that are dangerous to our well being, rights, resources, or property, or are in conflict with our laws, culture or beliefs or are incompatible with the principles set forth in the Constitution.

      We have stopped immigration altogether in the past. We have banned certain people and groups since the beginning for various causes, including in the distant past of the Obama Administration. The idea we must accept every Tom, Juan and Mohammed into this country is absolute fallacy. This is why we keep hearing that "it's not who we are", because such ideas are not legally defensible or Constitution. The judges who stayed Trump's EO's, based their decisions on a ideology, not on the law or the Constitution and its separation of power. They are not privy to national security issues and have no authority over executive decisions regarding national security.

      In summary, aliens outside U.S. jurisdiction have no 1st Amend. protections, no right to enter, no right to stay indefinitely and no right to immigrate. By entering U.S. jurisdiction, aliens accept the obligation to abide by our laws and to be good visitors or if immigrants, to assimilate to our culture and laws. That's the way it is, despite the snowflake meltdowns, here and abroad, that rail we must accept everyone who shows up at our border/airports and that we must extend Constitutional protections to the whole wide world, which, btw, infringes on the sovereign rights of foreign countries by claiming our laws apply within their jurisdiction..

      • 7Delta says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 8:57 pm

        Sorry about the italics. My mistake.

  6. Emilie Green says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 4:53 pm

    Man, Muslims, the regular kind or the Jasser kind, are really, really confused thinkers.

  7. Istanbul_Chick says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 4:55 pm

    So his mask has finally slipped…better late than never. I’ve maintained for years that islam reformers who still maintain that they are muslims are dangerous liars at worst and naive enablers suffering from cognitive dissonance at best. With an ideology as base, destructive and grotesque (especially the character of mohammad) it is impossible to reform it. The wiser course of action is to scrap it and come up with something else. There is more than a whiff of dishonesty with islam reformers (even the ones who have been murdered in the process).

    • Pumbar says

      Mar 14, 2017 at 11:01 pm

      We haven’t seen you on here for a long time istanbul_chick. I hope you’ve been okay.

  8. RonaldB says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 5:07 pm

    There are two aspects of Islam with which we should be concerned.

    One is the tendency to advance Islam by violence. All the focus on filtering and vetting Muslims focuses on separating the violent Muslims from those who will not commit terror actions.

    But, the other aspect of Islam is the personal and legal parts of sharia law. Now, the command to spread Islam by the sword is just as much part of sharia law as forbidding representation of humans in art. Also, part of sharia law is the command that rulers be Muslim, that sharia be the basis of law rather than any constitution, and that legal issues are decided through the Koran and Sunnah rather than through legislation.

    Suppose, we could get a class of Muslim who would reliably be free of terror acts. What we have left are the Muslim Brotherhood operatives who form strongly-funded, cohesive political and educational interest groups that burrow into government and systematically undercut our traditional freedoms such as freedom of expression. They exert their influence through the legal and judicial process. So, you don’t have to worry about the terrorist blowing you up if you criticize Islam. You simply have a policeman with a warrant for your arrest showing up at your door.

    In a sense, the terrorists are doing us a favor. We can talk about excluding Muslims, and not have to appear as if we’re discriminating against one religion. “It’s not the doctrine we dislike; it’s the terror.” But, if we exclude the terrorists, we’re still importing people whose core doctrine is fundamentally opposed to our Western liberal values. The more of them who come in and vote, the weaker our system of rights becomes.

    Now, the Ismails, the Ahmadiyyas claim to be peaceful. They may even claim to support human rights, although they also claim to follow Muhammad, which is a nice way of trying to square the circle.

    Terror is one aspect of Islam, but the entire body of sharia law and doctrine is in fundamental opposition to Western values. This is the thrust of Obama and his post-Americanism. He loved bringing Muslims into the country because to import Muslims was to take effective steps to dissolve and replace the American culture we know.

    • EYESOPEN says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 7:33 pm

      Hear, hear Ronald. You have put the conundrum very nicely. Our elected “representatives” – including the President – MUST understand that it isn’t just the violence of the muzlim (sic – on purpose) jihadis that harm the United States and its citizens; but the very principles enshrined in the quran and sharia that are really the more dire threat.

      I refer any who wish to know about the real danger inherent in “al hijra” to read a great book – not much more than a pamphlet really – by Sam Solomon and E Al Maqdisi, called: “Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration”, for the historic importance of the “hijra” AND examples throughout history of how this immigration jihad has taken over nations.

  9. mortimer says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 5:17 pm

    Zuhdi Jasser is completely subjective. No counterjihadist wishes to harm him. After years of being mocked, his skin is very thin. No wonder! However, he is wrong.

    Many counterjihadists are skeptical that Islam can be reformed. That is a reasonable theory to hold. Zuhdi Jasser still thinks he can reform Islam? He is entitled to think it.

    I am entitled to think that Zuhdi Jasser CANNOT reform Islam and I believe it based on what Sharia law says, rather than ‘opinions’ of so-called experts.

  10. billybob says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 5:57 pm

    I have given some thought to the potential for reform of Islam. Even with the most basic, but accurate knowledge of islam, it is clearly impossible. One would have to remove the evil warmonger Muhammad from the picture, and rip out half the pages of the Quran. Whatever remains would in no way, shape or form be Islam. It would be a completely new, fabricated religion. Jasser is in an untenable position. That must be constantly generating cognitive dissonance for him. How can a man of his intellect (a surgeon, afterall) hold such a nonsensical point of view? I think it must be that things that twist the mind into a knot are independent of intellect, or perhaps there are some mind traps that are actually amplified by IQ.

  11. Voytek Gagalka says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 6:14 pm

    As it must be said, it is sad to hear it, too. Because when anti-jihad forces are fighting between themselves, jihad is on the move and absolutely UNITED against kuffar by the power of Mohammed’s unbreakable Ummah. Sad, because it cannot end well for anti-jihad forces as it will progress further and utter chaos will be the only result and our eventual downfall. Remember how Eastern Roman Empire fell to Islam: in disunity.

    • IQ al Rassooli says

      Mar 14, 2017 at 6:16 pm

      Please spread the following video PROVING in 6 minutes that Muslims will NEVER be LOYAL citizens anywhere NOT Islamic

      This video has more than one million views already

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJnW8HRHLLw&t=2s

      IQ al Rassooli
      Kafir & Proud!

    • simpleton1 says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 6:57 am

      They all unite under the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.

      Despite the feuding/sectarian disputes they maintain the common goal, of the “Organisation of Islamic Cooperation” with regular summits, to achieve the common islamic goals.

      Islamic Summit[edit]
      The largest meeting, attended by the kings and the heads of state and government of the member states, convenes every three years.[clarification needed]The Islamic Summit takes policy decisions and provide guidance on all issues pertaining to the realisation of the objectives as provided for in the Charter and consider other issues of concern to the Member States and the Ummah.[60]

      Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers[edit]
      Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers meets once a year to examine a progress report on the implementation of its decisions taken within the framework of the policy defined by the Islamic Summit.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_Islamic_Cooperation

    • RonaldB says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 10:46 am

      Actually, I agree completely with your Shiite acquaintance. The West should not interfere when the Muslims slaughter each other and most especially, should not admit refugees on the grounds that they will be slaughtered in their home countries. That is an internal affair of Muslims. The West is under no obligation to endanger itself to protect foreign Muslims, or anyone else, for that matter.

      The most functional form of government in Muslim countries seems to be a dictatorship willing to use brutality to keep itself in power and to enforce civilian security. Examples of these are Saddam Hussein, Mubarak, and Assad in Syria. The West in general, and the US in particular, has been responsible for the unnecessary dislocation and deaths of many Muslims by cherry-picking brutal acts by these dictatorships, and supporting their overthrow. I don’t think we should feel obligated to alleviate Muslims slaughtering Muslims, but I do not feel we should exacerbate the problem either.

      Muslims are humans. Our first responsibility is to ourselves, but it is immoral to cause the unnecessary deaths and suffering of Muslims.

      • Carolyne says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 12:48 pm

        Ronald B. you are correct. It began with Jimmy Carter double-crossing the Shah of Iran in one of the most shameful acts ever perpetrated by a US government. Then came George Bush (Both) the elder who evicted Iraq from Kuwait and the younger who considered it necessary to retaliate against Saddam Hussein, although most of the terrorists who blew up the World Trade Buildings were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Hillary Clinton and Hussein Obama then further added to the conflagration by interfering with Libya, Syria and Yemen, causing a complete conflagration in the Middle East..

        IMO We need to let the Muslims kill each other and not interfere in it.

        As to your last paragraph, I don’t much care. For the most part, they kill each other.

  12. somehistory says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 6:22 pm

    There are so many evil heads of islam…like the dragon described in Revelation.

    Each one of those heads has the same goal: subjugate people, make all bow to the beast.

    jasser is a liar, but he lies by pretending that he believes islam can be *reformed*…changed into something that it is not.
    islam is evil: he would have to reform it to good and that can’t be done, it is impossible.And he knows it.
    islam destroys: he would have it reform to creating, and that can’t be done either.

    islam is demanding: he is even demanding in his efforts to *reform*…the way he speaks, not wanting anyone to disagree with him and not seeing any points made by others.

    In every way islam is evil, it would need to be changed. If that happened, it wouldn’t be islam any longer.
    The devil created islam. satan is the father of lies and the father of humans who lie and he has proven to the be father of moslims as moslims are taught by him to lie in order to cause people to bow to him.

    He has finally shown his true face…that he lies like all the other moslims who pretend how wonderful is the belief in islam. He says it needs to be changed, but he is really against the change. He just wants to be the spokesman for moslims in the country and get paid for it.

  13. kessler says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 6:28 pm

    It has been ages since I saw Robert Spencer in a debate.
    Have I just missed them or is nobody willing to debate him anymore?!?

  14. Phil says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 6:28 pm

    Yes I had been feeling Dr. Jasser moving further to the left (or the extreme right if you consider the end game of the jihadists) the last couple of times that I saw him speak at CPAC and on Fox News. I spoke with Raheel Raza myself privately after she spoke at ACT for America Conference in DC last September and she also said the same thing. That there are many reformist Muslims in the Clarion Project and that the Quran can stand as it is without taking out the violent passages against non believers. She “interprets” them differently. I would love to live with real reformed Muslims. But just like Robert Spencer, I do not believe it will ever be possible.

    • Carolyne says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 12:53 pm

      Dr. Jasser is very deceptive. He is attractive, he appears to be clean and intelligent, with no rags on his head and no dirty scraggly beard, and he speaks in a calm voice. A wolf wearing sheep’s clothing.

      • EYESOPEN says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 7:45 pm

        That is what I have seen him to be as well. If he knows izlam (sic – on purpose) as well as he says he does, then he MUST know that to “reform” izlam by removing the evil, objectionable parts is impossible. Those muzlims who disagree with him will simply point to the quran and hadiths – and sharia – and call him an apostate.

        But it certainly is strange that I have not heard of any fatwas on his head or threats to his life as I have for Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller. He seems to be the model “moderate” muzlim unicorn that so many have been looking for. Hmmmm, muzlim “apostate” – or the ultimate “stealth jihadi”?

  15. Sam says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 6:56 pm

    JW readers all know ( I hope) that there is only one Islam which is evil. It can not be changed as it supposedly came from Allah through Gabriel to illiterate Mohammad. Mr Jasser has no impact and can not have any impact by pretending that there is a good Islam also. He would be killed immediately in the Caliphate if he said one word about reforming Islam.

    After watching the Third Jihad Documentary I had realized that he is a big enabler of Islam by hinting that there is a good Islam out there somewhere. There has never been a good Islam and there can not be a good Islam as long as the Koran exists,

    We have to fight Islam and yes Muslims also. Period.

    • RonaldB says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 11:06 am

      Why fight Muslims? Just keep them out of the West, and there’s no need for fighting.

  16. pdxnag says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 7:15 pm

    What is it that is stopping him from openly declaring his apostasy from Islam?

    • EYESOPEN says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 7:48 pm

      Good question. An even better question is this: If he is so convinced that izlam (sic – on purpose) needs “reform”, then why does he still cling to izlam, which has at its roots the evil “allah” and Mad Mo?

  17. Bradamante says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 7:21 pm

    It’s too bad. I’ve always admired Zuhdi Jasser and I do what I can to acknowledge his quixotic efforts. However, if push comes to shove between him and people like Robert Spencer, I do believe Spencer (and others like him whom Jasser was complaining about) has the truth on his side, and whichever side has the truth is the side to be on. If Jasser’s reform movement were showing significant success and Spencer et al. were ignoring it, that would be one thing. But if there were such success, there’d be no need to lash out like this; pointing to the success would be sufficient. Incidentally, I don’t have the impression that Robert Spencer has actually said, “Islam can never, ever be reformed and anyone who tries to reform it is a liar.” As far as I’m aware, he’s simply pointed out consistently that certain standard — and deeply disturbing — interpretations of the texts are so widely accepted and backed up by such a mountain of traditional exegesis and by so many respected authorities that it’s much, much easier for someone who’s looking for “authentic Islam” to end up working for the same goals as the jihadists than to end up supporting a reform agenda like Jasser’s. In short, it seems to me that his attitude towards reform has been, “I’ll believe it when I see it.” Nothing in that attitude to justify the vitriol that Jasser was dishing out.

    • ECAW says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 5:16 am

      Well said, Bradamante.

  18. Mo says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 7:26 pm

    What a vile man. Well, I am glad his true colors are now showing! He knows Islam can’t be reformed, or else it will no longer be Islam. Yet he refuses to leave it. That’s why he’s so angry. These are the rantings of a man who knows his fantasy about reforming Islam is just that – a fantasy. But he can’t or won’t admit it. Where else is there to go from there? His entire enterprise of trying to reform Islam has been a failure. That’s a hard thing to own up to, for anyone.

    My question is, if he sincerely doesn’t agree/want sharia, if he does not support so many of the terrible teachings of Islam, why doesn’t he just leave it entirely? Who follows a religion when they don’t even believe or agree or want its teachings? That makes zero sense. (Assuming you’re living in a free country where you have that choice. He obviously does.)

    But then, that would take intellectual honesty and courage. And with the filth he’s written in this screed, this man has demonstrated he has neither.

    Stay strong, Robert. Don’t let fools like this get you down. You’ve got the facts on your side. No one can ever take that from you.

  19. Shmooviyet says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 8:57 pm

    It’s all been said here, but must add my two-cent piece. As Mr. Spencer says, Jasser has been so absolutely cuddled up by the conservative crowd. I hear the talk-radio guys refer adoringly to him. Then again, those fellows are also so fond of the “radical islamic terrorist” phrasing, one has to wonder just how knowledgable they are about ‘NON- radical islam” and the hopelessness of the reform idea.
    That level of defensiveness usually comes with dishonesty… he has certainly fooled alot of people, or just fit in well with some who don’t want to step over that PC line.

    • somehistory says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 12:07 am

      I have long noticed that when people are wrong, and out of arguments that had *worked* for them before, they begin to insult those who disagree with them, esp those who show their arguments are not valid.

  20. Warren Raymond says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 9:07 pm

    Here’s my exchange with the stealth jihadist Jasser, thanks to TT who saved it:

    HOW TO TALK TO ZUHDI JASSER WHEN YOU HAVE TO…….
    By KGSaccess_time2 years agochat_bubble_outline2

    TT compadre, Warren Raymond, goes head to head with Islamopologist (‘moderate’ Islam peddler) Zuhdi Jasser, concerning the latter’s call for the Obama administration to protect the ‘Rohingya’ Muslims of Burma.

    Fibber Zuhdi Jasser: Please read and disseminate our full report from USCIRF after our trip to Burma in August 2014 reviewing our findings of the horrible religious freedom situation there. On the eve of President Obama’s upcoming trip to Burma our findings will be particularly relevant. Will President Obama even use the word “Rohingya”? Will he continue to praise their “political progress” while ignoring the plight of religious freedom especially for Muslims and Kachin Christians? Read our report and hold our President and media accountable.
    Everywhere you look in the world, in the present age and in times past, Muslims have been waging their jihad on indigenous peoples, wiping out their cultures, traditions, moral codes and systems of jurisprudence. What we see in Burma, are indigenous peoples (Buddhists) fighting back against the non-indigenuous Islamic horde, and while the violence carried out is entirely regrettable, such a gross violation of national sovereignty should never be rewarded with a de facto state of their own.

    Here’s the exchange:

    Warren Raymond “Rohingya” is an invention just like the “Palestinians” were invented after 1967. They are Bengal Muslim invaders. If they are legitimised, they will wipe out the Buddhists of Burma, just like they wiped out the Buddhists of Afghanistan and India.
    M Zuhdi Jasser Warren Raymond all nations have challenges with immigrant populations with regards to national security and identity. Read our full report. Your comments and Burma’s chauvinistic solutions will not work and are inhumane. These are Muslims who have been Burmese for generations. To deny them religious freedom and agency is a crime and violates all standards of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We saw little to no evidence of any penetration of AQ, MB, JI, or Wahhabism or petro-radical Islamist movements in the groups ideologies we met nor evidenced provably by Burma’s government. If there is a disenfranchised community of Muslims in the world from both the west and the Islamists of the OIC, it is the Rohingya Muslims of Burma. This in no way minimizes any national security risks any groups like Islamists may pose, but you should know that Burmese chauvinism and criminal religious discrimination serves only to put jet fuel into Muslim separatism and radicalization to the extent that it exists at all in Burma. To deny them all religious freedom and agency after they have been in Burma for generations is not only a failed strategy but inhumane.
    Warren Raymond The humanity of Muslims is legendary, Zuhdi. In Pakistan and Bangladesh they prove it daily. The Turks proved it with the Armenians and Iran does it every day with the Christians and the Bahai. Considering that unbelievers are the ‘vilest of beasts’ and sons of apes and swine and that in that ideology only Muslims are considered ‘human’ I prefer the injustice of eviction to legitimising the invasion. “Rohingya” is not a people, they have no history, no king, no coinage and no land, they are Bengali Muslims, nothing else. Their claim is based on fraud and deception. Nothing, except the law of allah entitles them to settle in Burma, and their ‘disenfranchisement’ is of their own making. It always is, because in Burma the Muslims are no different from anywhere else. They are illegal settlers in a land where they have committed many crimes. I have been to Burma, I have seen their mosques and I have seen no difference to what they do elsewhere. “Penetration of AQ, MB, JI, or Wahhabism or petro-radical Islamist movements” may not be as strong as elsewhere because they are being closely watched, but it is clearly there. There are many Arabs strutting their stuff, which means the petrodollar jihad is in full swing.
    M Zuhdi Jasser Warren Raymond there is no rational way to respond to your blanketed deception and hate for all Muslims. Regardless of the truth or fiction of your stereotype, as a strategy it’s doomed to failure arguing for an endgame that attempts to convert all Muslims 1/4 of the world out of Islam. Your inhumane un-American generalizations about all Muslims includes me, my family and all our supporters and anti-Islamists…Muslims like the majority of Egyptians who threw out the MB. Your ideas are doomed to fail and stand against everything America stands for.
    Warren Raymond A very stereotypical Muslim response, Zuhdi. Let nothing deter you from advancing the Islamic expansion program, or is it pogrom?
    M Zuhdi Jasser Warren Raymond you just proved your fascism. Calling my work advancing a pogrom is the summit of disinformation. I’m done here.
    Warren Raymond Projection is the first and last refuge of the scoundrel, Zuhdi. I don’t hate, I care. I care for my society, for my culture, for my civilisation and for my people. Not for the blood-cult of Islam, not for a culture of savagery, deception and destruction, Islam has no redeeming features, all of it has to go. Advancing the Mohammedan agenda for the Bengal invaders against the Buddhists makes it clear which side you’re on. I don’t think you have any divided loyalties, you are simply playing for time. Jihad by demographics….

  21. Dov Berrol says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 9:07 pm

    I think the area that needs to be explored here is: what makes an ideology a “religion”? It seems that as soon as an ideology is defined as a religion, it has some special protection in our desire to give the individual citizen of a democratic country his right to live according to his personal convictions. The separation of “Church and State” really began with the French Revolution – which marked the end of the Medieval Corporate structure of civilization where a person’s status in society was centrally linked to how he prayed. With the advent of the Nation State in the modern era, every person regardless of religion was given equal status as a citizen of the state. In reality, the separation of Church and State was never 100% and some religions and their adherents are still given priority – just look at all the crosses on the flags of European countries. Just listen to the lyrics of “O Canada” – especially in French.

    But when a totalitarian ideology hides behind the protective cloak of religion, it is critical that the leaders of the Western World begin to strictly define what we will allow to be called a “religion”. Can you imagine if proponents of Nazism or Communism began to call themselves followers of a religion? And therefore any criticism of the ideology would be seem as an affront to freedom of worship? If Muslims can demand that the character of Mohammed be beyond criticism and mockery because he is divine, what is to stop a Nazi from demanding the same for Hitler?

    I think that part of the answer is that Islam is a dangerous “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”. It is an Arab totalitarian political and military ideology whose goal is submission of the entire world to to domination by Arab Civilization. Even Jasser’s name is Arab. Islam’s designation as a religion is a deceitful strategy created by ruthless men from the Arabian peninsula so that they can conquer and rule the planet. It is not a religious ideology in the sense that we Jews, Christians, Bhuddists and Hindus define religion and faith in order to live a moral life on this planet. What we need is a definitive scholarly work that would show us exactly how Islam/Mohammedism differs from all other religions on the planet. We can then isolate it, show it for what it truly is (a totalitarian Arab political military ideology) and show the world that it does not deserve the protection that its religious leaders demand.

    • Gerald Mucci says

      Mar 14, 2017 at 11:32 pm

      Exactly. We cannot defend our culture, beliefs, our civilization without being able to distinguish Islam from protected religions. Unfortunately, that won’t happen in my children’s lifetimes given our leader’s and media’s refusal to face reality.

    • vlparker says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 7:49 am

      The idea that ‘freedom of religion’ protects a religion whose sole purpose is to eliminate all other religions and governments, and ultimately to rule the world is absolutely ludicrous. Islam should get no religious protection. It is a no brainer. That we are even debating this shows how cowardly most western politicians and pundits are.

      • vlparker says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 8:02 am

        On second thought, what is even worse is that we are NOT debating it. No one in Washington will even bring up the subject that islam is a totalitarian political ideology totally unworthy of religious protection. We have a bizarre situation in which something that should be obvious to anyone with a thimble full of brains and isn’t even worthy of debate, is not debated at all, not because it is obvious to everyone but because it is politically incorrect to debate it. The cowardice in Washington is ubiquitous.

    • RonaldB says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 11:43 am

      Part of the problem is that religion is not only protected, but it is privileged. People are allowed to do for religious reasons what would otherwise be illegal: Kosher or hallal slaughter of animals, not saying the Pledge, parking variances at places of worship, relaxation of educational standards for religious schools and so forth.

      Muslims take full advantage of the privileges accorded to religious status.

      To my mind, it is more Constitutional to withdraw specifically-religious privilege than to declare that Islam, including its so-called peaceful sects such as the Ismailis and the Amadiyyas. is not a real religion.

      I am not against organized religion: I support the presence of traditional organized religion in the US. I simply don’t think it should have special privileges. If a law is necessary, religious should abide by it. If it is unnecessarily intrusive, all citizens should have relief.

      You could make a law that to receive tax exemption, a school has to teach certain things concerning the American form of government. Or not. I’m simply opposed to having one set of laws for religious groups and a different set for secular groups. Again, whatever religious exemptions you have, Muslims will be the most adept at using them to advance Islam.

  22. Vic says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 11:26 pm

    Dr. Jasser is not a stupid man, but he is conflicted. After listening and watching several of his videos and presentations I became intrigued with his “reformed position”. He comes across as sincerely believing that there is room for a reformed Islam perhaps because he lives here, in a free society where he can actually practice Islam how he interprets it and gives that opinion and still live. Maybe his sincerity and demeanor throws us non-believers off when he speaks about what he believes can be done.

    ZJs ideas may seem reasonable to us westerners because we went through a difficult Reformation process within Christianity. So our own experience assents instinctively that such process exists and it bore fruit. Yet, knowing what we know about Islam, his premise falls as a house of cards without a foundation. There is much dissonance in his reasoning. Think about how the Reformation was born. It wasn’t a grassroots effort, but in fact at the Monk/Priest level. The clerics at Al-Azar would have to be enlightened. Egyptian Pres. Al-Sisi already asked them to no avail.

    Somewhere inside our sense of fair play would like for ZJ to win his case. It’s a resolution to the Problem that can be championed by many non-believers. Some at the White House think this could be a plausible answer. But as RS points out clearly, why are there so few declared moderates after these many years of team building? Sounds like ZJ is frustrated and conflicted.

    Nevertheless, ZJ keeps up the rhetoric that some people want to hear. Many people have heard so much about the religion of peace, that some think perhaps it can be reformed. And unless you have delved into and studied the topic as thoroughly as Robert Spencer (and other counter-jihadis) has, we are at a disadvantage and can easily be drawn into the deception.

    Robert Spencer deserves much credit. He is a very thorough teacher/expositor who stands on the truth and the individual facts pointed out in the Koran and other holy books plus all the Muslim jurisprudence and historical evidence. Like a prosecuting attorney, he lays out the case in a comprehensive manner that speaks for itself. He pulls no punches and for that he is labeled an islamophobe. If we are not scared to face the truths and seek to understand our own Bible, then we should never back away from seeking truth and understanding from any religion or its tenets.

    ZJ had no reason to attack RS or any of the others. Perhaps he is afraid that his mask is slipping away because RS had the temerity of shining the light of truth on his shaky premises.

    • somehistory says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 12:16 am

      Christianity has never *reformed* or been *reformed.* If people did not understand Christ’s commands, His message, His reasoning, teaching, etc., then that means they did not understand. It does not mean that His teachings, commands, reasoning, message, etc. changed in the slightest.
      If people calling themselves Christian and claiming to believe did not follow Christ as He commanded and instructed, and then in later times, others have followed Him, it only means that some people have understood His commands and managed to conform their lives to those teachings.

      Christianity itself has not changed from the Day that Jesus began to proclaim God’s message of the good news.

      • EYESOPEN says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 7:59 pm

        Thank you somehistory. I would only add the Jesus Christ’s message never changed. What humans may have done in His name was always something else.

    • Mo says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 12:38 am

      @ Vic

      “ZJs ideas may seem reasonable to us westerners because we went through a difficult Reformation process within Christianity.”

      No, “we” did not. Christianity’s Reformation had nothing whatsoever to do with any violent or otherwise problematic teachings in the Bible. So there’s no comparison here.

      Christianity has zero open ended commands for believers to commit violence against unbelievers or anyone else. Nor does it teach any of the other problematic things that Islam teaches. This comparison is, at best, useless. At worst, it’s blasphemous.

      • Vic says

        Mar 15, 2017 at 3:13 pm

        Thank you @Mo and @somehistory for your comments.

        Perhaps I used the word “reformation” as too broad a comparison. I was just using the awareness of the word “reformation” in America and how it could resonate with some people who do not know much about the history of the church or its basic doctrines. I was not comparing the tenets of Christianity or its theology or its doctrine with those of Islam. God forbid!

        I was just using a word and speculating that perhaps Jassers ideas could find some resonance among a biblical/historical illiterate public and that he may be looking to validate his ideas that reform is possible within Islam.

        To make this point: We must remember that Jasser was invited to participate in a panel discussion on combatting Islamic terrorism at CPAC by people who are entrenched conservatives, including Seb Gorka. Yet, no one disputed his premises then or later, until RS saw through his slippery untruths. Rather, they welcomed him as a veritable patriot offering a “moderate” reform solution to a-to-date thoroughly confounding and unsolvable problem. Hooray for Jasser. He has become the new darling.
        Not one criticism. That would be Islamophobic. And these are people who claim to know and understand Islam and jihad? See what I mean?

        You are correct in saying that Christianity did not have to throw away its basic doctrine during the Reformation. We know that. Many people don’t. In order to reform islam many of us believe it would have to be gutted out. Many people don’t. We don’t even worship the same God. No offense to our Lord and King of the Universe; No equivalence was intended; no comparison of the process; and I am well aware of that.

  23. Gerald Mucci says

    Mar 14, 2017 at 11:27 pm

    Jasser’s “facts” have never made any sense to me. It is amazing to me why so many on the right are taken in by his non-nonsensical deception. I have seen his writings where he claims he is a “devout” Muslim and then express his pro-America, pro-democracy spiel that enamors FOX so much. He has to disavow 50% of Islamic texts to hold this position, so his claim to devoutness is a lie. If that’s a lie, his whole persona is a lie.

    • vlparker says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 7:41 am

      Yup.

  24. Michael Ray says

    Mar 15, 2017 at 12:08 am

    Say we pretend a great wave of islamic reform occurs and the jihadis stop the murdering. What you have left is STILL vile! No honesty, no work ethic, no neighborliness, no art, no honoring of women, no compassion for children, no freedom of thought or expression. Can we Western peoples just stop with all the appeasement efforts. Can we just get on with the total defeat of this filthy collection of ideas, knowing we are in the right. Our children, grandchildren, etc. will all thank us.

    • Michael Ray says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 12:19 am

      P.S. ZJ makes alot bank riding two horses at once. Well, these horses are veering sharply away from one another and Mr. Jasser has some choosing to do.

    • RonaldB says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 11:55 am

      “Can we just get on with the total defeat of this filthy collection of ideas…”

      We don’t need to defeat it. We need to isolate it and keep Muslims in the countries they came from and out of non-Muslim countries. Ideas are not necessarily defeated on their rationality, particularly religious beliefs.

      Islam as an ideology has been exposed thoroughly, and many times. Robert Spencer is only one of many specialists who are knowledgeable of Islam and can expose it in open debate or through printed material. Islam spreads in Western countries partly because Islam uses Western ideals, like tolerance and freedom, against the West. Islam also uses the dysfunctional aspects of Western countries, such as the tendency to centralize (globalization) against it.

      It would be a pretty good start to ban any Muslim immigrant, with no exception (except perhaps a Muslim who gave extraordinary service to our military in his own country).

  25. JayT says

    Mar 15, 2017 at 1:10 am

    I feel the reason Jasser never left Islam wasn’t because he thought he could reform it from within, but it was akin to knowing a magnet that loses its magnetism is just a plain object.

    He’s smart enough to know the speaking engagements, talk TV shows, books, and interviews will take a severe nosedive if he was known as Jasser the ex-Muslim versus the Muslim reformer.

    Hence, I believe it’s always been about his ego to a large degree, which is why any such criticism will enrage him as it goes to his core. By taking the mirror away from Jasser, the horns and teeth are now coming out.

  26. Scott says

    Mar 15, 2017 at 3:01 am

    After reading Pamela and Robert’s articles, I realize that what I personally “hoped for” versus the reality of Jasser’s “reform movement” was nothing more than wishful thinking.
    I believe he is a American Patriot, just a misguided one.
    Thank you Robert and Pamela…..

  27. Linnte says

    Mar 15, 2017 at 3:10 am

    I KNEW IT! I FLIPPING KNEW IT! It was all a flipping nasty Islamic ruse from this stealth Jihadi. As is Raheel Raza. It all about convincing us that Islam is not a threat. The sneaky bastard!

  28. Baucent says

    Mar 15, 2017 at 3:23 am

    Jasser is a Westernised muslim and I happen to believe he does want to see a reformation of his religion. But he is also a deeply frustrated man, frustrated that few other muslims will join him. Like the guy who invested his life savings on Beta video technology, only to see the world go for VHS. He’s on a lonely Island with few others wanting to join him. Robert can afford to ignore him, everyone else does.

    • RonaldB says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 11:56 am

      How about the guy who put his life savings into keeping the classic coke?

  29. John says

    Mar 15, 2017 at 3:28 am

    There is no such thing as a ‘moderate’ Muslim.
    There is no such thing as ‘moderate’ Islam.

    It’s not Islamic terrorists.
    It’s not radical Islamists.
    It’s not radical Islam.

    It’s just Islam, and it’s actually a political ideology masquerading as a so-called “…religion of peace.”
    Accept that fact.
    And fight it.
    Every day.

  30. August West says

    Mar 15, 2017 at 4:18 am

    To see how the global jihad is rooted in Islamic teachings one need look no farther than the constitution of the Islamic Republic of iran or the Hammas Charter.

    The Koran is quoted, all bukari is quoted, Twelvers are mentioned, Jafari school is referred to, jihad is referenced and on and on.

    Jasser seems to think that Islam can reform itself to the extent that it is based 100% on the Meccan koran chapterso.

    Great.

    Which school of Islamic jurisprudence teaches This?
    Which mosques teach it?
    Which Islamic head of state says this?
    Which Islamic nation has this mecca only version of Islam in its Constitution?

    Jasserism cannot be observed in the real world.

    Jasser denounces the propaganda term Islamophobia, then creates a new propaganda term alt-Islam.

    The teachings of Islam are available for the whole world to see. If Muslims want to reform it, then they should shut up and reform it.

    I’ll believe it when I hear Erdogan chaneed from

    Islam is Islam and that is that

    To

    Islam is mecca koran and that is that.

    Until then….

    The Mosques are the barracks
    the domes are the helmets
    the minurettes are the bayonets
    The Muslims are the soldiers

    Jasserism has been sxposed as a PR stunt

  31. Gordon Miller says

    Mar 15, 2017 at 6:36 am

    I don’t hate all Muslims; I just feel better when they’re not around.
    Highly recommend the video referenced above by a fellow commenter. Strangely, it is almost amusing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJnW8HRHLLw&t=2s

  32. RichardL says

    Mar 15, 2017 at 7:21 am

    @ECAW

    We all here are criticising an ideology: islam. It is very popular to call islam Nazism or fascism and I believe that this is imprecise and thus opens us up to counter arguments. I would rather not waste time debating whether islam is not Nazi/fascist because of a minor point (futurist orientation in fascism, romantic orientation in most strands of Nazism). I would rather spend time pointing out that islam is a totalitarian ideology. Nobody likes totalitarianism – not even Muslims. So by say islam is totalitarian we are precise and hit where it hurts.

    Too theoretic? Maybe. That is because I studied terrorism under Paul Wilkinson, the founder of the discipline.

  33. duj swami says

    Mar 15, 2017 at 8:48 am

    How can you reform perfection without calling Allah a liar? Are ‘reformers’ warring with Allah and spreading mischief in the land…or just spreading taqiyya that will be forgiven?

    • vlparker says

      Mar 15, 2017 at 9:22 am

      Bingo.

  34. Laurence says

    Mar 15, 2017 at 9:32 am

    Attn. Robert Spencer. . . (if you have not yet read) please read: “Is Muslim Reform Even Possible?” (By Elliot Friedland Wednesday, March 15, 2017) found on the Clarion Project website. In it, Robert Spencer’s name and a couple of his comments in his article above are referenced.
    https://clarionproject.org/is-muslim-reform-even-possible/

    Does Robert Spencer (yet) have any book (or booklet) devoted solely (and especially) to Muslim, as well as to non-Muslim reformers down through history who have attempted to do just that – reform Islam and it’s interpretation of the Koran and other ‘canonical’/sanctioned religious (and other) texts of theirs – and the outcome of their attempts to do so?

  35. awake says

    Mar 15, 2017 at 10:08 am

    Mohammed Zuhdi Jasser. ‘Nuff said.

  36. peterenfran says

    Mar 15, 2017 at 10:36 am

    I,am an administrator at https://warsclerotic.com/

    And i run into a college moderator who is not so pleased that i re posted this topic from PG and a topic from RS .
    He is in favor the clarion project .

    Perhaps are PG and/or RS willing to spend some words and time on it .

    https://warsclerotic.com/2017/03/15/just-in-from-our-top-contributor-and-administrator/

    Please can somebody bring this under attention of PG and / or RS

  37. Angemon says

    Mar 15, 2017 at 10:43 am

    Jasser announces that he is “going to coin a new term…And I’m going to call it alt-jihadism.” The “alt-jihad is exploiting the idea of jihad in order to become powerful and in order to marginalize any solutions within the house of Islam.”

    That’s an unfalsifiable claim – how does Jasser propose to prove this? I mean, for starters, what solutions are within the house of islam?

    the dream of the king of Saudi Arabia, it’s the dream of the Khomeinists to have these kinds of allies like Spencer and Guandolo working with them.

    This makes no sense. Why would the people professing to be the defenders of the “real” brand of islam make their legitimacy depend on non-muslims? The Saudis and the Iranians say what they say, and people like Guandolo or Spencer say “well, I’ve read the books and studied the sources, and I conclude that’s all in accordance to islamic orthodoxy, history and precedents”. Unlike the Saudis and Iranians, they see it as a bad thing. Whose fault is it that islam ic texts, history and precedents support the barbarism enacted by Saudi Arabia or Iran? Certainly not Guandolo’s or Spencer’s.

  38. Ed Lee says

    Mar 15, 2017 at 10:48 am

    Jasser believes there are “interpretations of Islam that can be modernised, that can be held compatible with Western thought.” Wrong! Sura 3, verse 7 explicitly states that man is prohibited from any interpreting of the Qur’an. This verse has not been abrogated, so any talk about interpretations of the Qur’an is nonsense.

  39. NancyB says

    Mar 15, 2017 at 11:15 am

    Truly excellent article!

  40. Reziac says

    Mar 16, 2017 at 10:39 am

    As to “reformed” Islam, I note a consistent (perhaps universal) historical fact: where Islam arrives by means other than the sword, it first comes as the mild “reformed” version, but that is eventually superceded by fundamentalists who are not shy about seizing power to enforce their version of Islam. Secular Islam paves the way for strict Islam. Secular Muslim countries are brief anomalies that revert to strict Islam the moment the secular dictator loses his grip. It’s been that way for 1400 years, why expect Islam to change? I think such change is not possible, because this very process is baked into Islam.

  41. Richard Fisher says

    Mar 16, 2017 at 10:44 am

    How many ‘ Jasserits ‘ have you seen marching for their position. They don’t, because they know, and fear, the REAL Muslims.

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

  • gravenimage on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • Walter Sieruk on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • James Lincoln on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • revereridesagain on Audio: Robert Spencer on Muslim Brotherhood influence in a Biden/Harris administration

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.