In a new article over at the Unz Review, John Derbyshire asserts that I “hate” Islam, and calls me an “Islamophobe.” His article is entitled “I Don’t HATE Muslims—I’m PRUDENT About Them. There’s A Difference.”
So apparently one can be prudent, like Derbyshire, or “hateful,” like me. What’s the difference? Aside from the name-calling, Derbyshire isn’t entirely clear on that. He says that the promiscuous throwing-around of the “hate” charge to tar legitimate analysis is “childish” and “infantile,” but then he indulges in it himself. He says of me: “He strikes me as a decent sort of chap, but with a bee in his bonnet.” Yes, I have a “bee in my bonnet” about bike riders getting mown down by trucks, and revelers at a Christmas party getting gunned down in cold blood, and a family celebrating a Shabbat dinner being brutally murdered. How “hateful”! How silly!
I’ve never met John Derbyshire in person, and in reality he has no idea what I hate or what I don’t, but it just gets stranger from there: Derbyshire says that he favors “the suggestion that we should stop permitting Muslims to settle in the U.S.A., and ask foreign Muslims resident here to leave,” which are proposals I have never supported, and go much farther than any proposal that I ever have suggested, and which I doubt would be Constitutional. But, he maintains, he is not hateful, I am.
Interestingly enough, Derbyshire follows up his modest proposal with this: “If you say that in the public square you are denounced for bigotry and hate.”
Well, yes. In fact, if you make the slightest suggestion that anything should be done to oppose or resist jihad terror and Sharia oppression, you’ll be denounced for bigotry and hate. If Derbyshire thinks he will escape this by comparing himself favorably to me, he is in for an unpleasant surprise. Many others have criticized jihad terror and compared themselves favorably to me, and found themselves smeared and defamed and vilified by Leftists and Islamic supremacists anyway. If Derbyshire doubts this, he can ring up Maajid Nawaz.
In reality, the only reason why I am so many people’s touchstone for hatred and bigotry is because I have been at this so long, and so the charges have been repeated against me thousands of times, such that even a reasonably sensible individual such as John Derbyshire is calling me an “Islamophobe” as if it were a legitimate word and not a propaganda term designed to intimidate people into being afraid to oppose jihad terror, which is what it really is.
This is what my book Confessions of an Islamophobe is about: what standing for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law will get you these days. What makes someone a hateful Islamophobe? Just say you don’t think women should be beaten, or gays thrown off tall buildings. Say you think cartoonists of Muhammad should not be murdered or shunned in polite society. Think I’m exaggerating? Find out in Confessions of an Islamophobe. Preorder your copy here now.
Guy Macher says
I hate Islam, fascism, communism, the beliefs of the KKK and Planned Parenthood. AND I AM PROUD OF IT!
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Guy macher, you have gone mad for being possessed by the Satan Christians called Holy Spirit. mad devil Trump is suffering from the satanic possession ,and that is why he hates Islam.
Voytek Gagalka says
And you, Ibrahim itace muhammed, just tell us honestly, that you don’t hate all kuffar! Your comment just proves that you do beyond any reasonable doubt, and wholeheartedly so. And THAT is the sole reason why we despise your ideology called Islam.
gravenimage says
Ibrahim itace muhammed believes that the “filthy Infidels” should allow Muslims to rob, rape, enslave, and slaughter innocent people, and that if they take issue with this, they are “possessed by Satan”–this is Muslim “morality”.
In fact, his claim that concern for the harming of innocents is due to the Holy Spirit means something rather different to civilized Kuffar–and this is true whether they are Christian or not.
Some of us might call that *conscience*.
Westman says
Ibrahim, could you expand on the assignment of satan as the Christian holy ghost? Is this an official Islam doctrine and where could I read it in Islam’s Quran or Hadith?
Don Vito says
Itace, your pervert imbecile prophet has destroyed your gray matter, unless of course you are the product of first cousin “marriage”, if so you never had enough gray matter to matter. In passing, itace, tell all kufr how our blood and property can be made safe from the twisted diabolical hands of your filthy, vile, prophet? If you can’t have another swig of camel urine, it may help. Nah, it won’t help…..you are too f’ed up.
Hari Singh says
My grand parents were Fascist phobic. I don’t think they would have wanted continued Japanese, Italian and German immigration during World War 2
Geez you couldn’t immigrated as a Red Refugee from Russia if you had belonged to the Communist party.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Islamophobia must be retired as a concept because there’s nothing irrational about fear of Islam. It would be, er, prudent for Derbyshire to read the Holy Ko-Ran to inform himself of why this is so. I suggest a commented version of the Ko-Ran to make sure his reading is true. The imams know what the book says, and they ain’t shy about explaining it.
So many half-assed memes out there, so much confusion. We’re in the midst of a rocket science project to figure out the difference between Allah Akbar and Allahu Akbar. Sigh.
Greyhound Fancier says
I would also suggest reading The Reliance of the Traveler, to learn what adoption of sharia law would mean in everyday life.
Leftists worry about government being in the bedroom; sharia isn’t only in the bedroom, but even in the bathroom!
BTW, John Derbyshire was shown the door by National Review several years ago.
pandainc says
Funny you should mention ‘in the bathroom’. Here are the rules for going potty:
How to go potty in SA: http://www.myreligionislam.com/detail.asp?Aid=6096
They’re quite explicit as to how one empties one’s bowels. Pretty funny until you realize that they’re dead serious and need an instruction book.
mortimer says
John Derbyshire seems to think it fair for him to ‘review’ books and authors without actually READING their BOOKS before he reviews them, based solely on his guesses and prejudices. I disagree.
His presumptuous, uninformed, UNREAD speculations regarding Robert Spencer’s actual ideas (which Derbyshire has not read) make him just another virtue-signalling and flippant pseudo-intellectual.
Mr. Derbyshire, doesn’t a GENUINE, TRUE intellectual actually READ THE BOOKS and only THEN review them? That’s called INTELLECTUAL HONESTY, Mr. Derbyshire, isn’t it?
How about it, Mr. Derbyshire? Reading-and-reviewing is NOT EXACTLY what you did when you SPONTANEOULSY uttered unstudied, FLIPPANT criticisms of Robert Spencer, is it?
You were unfair, presumptuous and hollow towards Mr. Spencer, were you not?
Shame on you. I think you owe Robert Spencer an apology.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
… speculations regarding Robert Spencer’s ideas,,,
I’m not sure Spencer has ideas so much as he has solid bases of facts and constructs built around those facts. Being fluent in Arabic helps, being fluent in Sharia and the history of Islam also helps.
It’s like when news entertainers talk about the ideas of a politician. I don’t give a rat’s ass about his ideas, I want to know what his stated policy proposals are.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
“John Derbyshire seems to think it fair for him to ‘review’ books and authors without actually READING their BOOKS before he reviews them, based solely on his guesses and prejudices.”
Mortimer, Your argument would be much more convincing if you provided a link to John Derbyshire’s review of a book he had not read, along with evidence that he had not read it. Please cite the title and author of the reviewed book.
gravenimage says
Mortimer, I read Darbyshire’s review of Spencer’s “Religion of Peace? — Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t”, and while I disagreed with much of what he had to say, he did appear to have read at least some of the book–he quotes from it in places.
http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Reviews/Religion/religionofpeace.html
He does get several other things about Robert Spencer wrong, though–from his spelling of the Qur’an (he writes “Qu’ran”) to assumptions about his fluency in Arabic.
And he definitely *hasn’t* read the Koran (his usage)–he actually admits this, even though he–somehow–considers himself qualified to judge Spencer’s assessment of the creed of Islam without it.
Oddly, he does himself appear to consider Islam something of a threat–but mostly just so that he can slam the West in general, and Christianity in particular.
Linde Barrera says
I do not hate any Muslims at all. But…wait for it…I DO hate the evil ideology of Islam. And I am proud to be a hater of Islam. Why? Because who can love or even endorse a “religion” or ideology where the doctrines range from: killing people who do not think like you do even if they are not bothering you; to taking slaves and sex slaves; to beating a disobedient wife; to refusing to be friends with a person or help a person who does not follow the “religion” you do; to feeling “supremacist” due to the “religious” propaganda of this ideology that states you are superior simply because you subscribe and adhere to it. ??? Bottom line is: Allah only loves and is merciful to Muslims. Yet it is claimed that Allah created all people with free will. Where did Allah’s plans go awry? ??? ?
Mark says
“I do not hate any Muslims at all. But…wait for it…I DO hate the evil ideology of Islam. ”
You are a better man than I. I can’t help but hate the muffins who more down innocents in trucks, rape young girls, bomb children’s concerts, and fly planes into buildings.
Jaladhi says
Is there anything in Islam to like? Islam is a hateful vicious murderous criminal cult which some people think is religion!! Just read Quran and read all those murderous orders of Mo/allah which Muslims are ready to comply faithfully! And if non-Muslims are afraid of Muslims and tell the truth about Muslims they are called Islamophobes!
Terry Gain says
Yes. Anyone who doesn’t fear Islam is either ignorant about Islamic doctrine and history, or is plain stupid.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Is there anything in Islam to like?
Well, it has Jannat, the Islam porno heaven where you get a throne, an endless supply of 11 yr old houris or a hidden pearl little boy if you swing the Kevin Spacey way, a permanent erection, rivulets flowing with wine, free cheese plates, the works. For eternity. Moslem guys like that.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Jaladhi, as Hindu Barbarian do you take Hinduism as a religion? It is purely an idol worship cult. so, you cannot debate against Islam a monotheist religion. I want know how do you Hindu barbarians feel when you rape untouchables inserting sticks instead of penis? Idiots!!
Wellington says
Islam is the ultimate idol worshiping cult. Essentially, Islam is a worship of a seventh-century illiterate barbarian, one Mohammed, the Model Man and all that rot, who invented Allah as his hand puppet. Yes, I know that officially in Islam it is Allah who is worshiped and not Mo, but de facto, not de jure, it amounts to a worship of Mo via the fictional Allah. Of course all this you miss. But then you miss a lot. Every Muslim does, only the degree varies.
Islam is the worst excuse for a religion of all time. Mohammed was a psychopath and narcissist, Allah is fictional and a creepy fiction at that, and the Koran is the most pathetic excuse for a major religious work of all time (damn boring too). All three, Mo, Allah and the Koran can be stuck where the sun never shines. For that matter, you too, Ibrahim.
May your Allah strike me dead tonight if I am wrong here. Be with you soon. Perhaps as early as tomorrow. Kiss off, loser.
Don Vito says
Itace, giving kfur religious lessons? Lol, itace, how does kufr protect their blood and property from your filthy religion, authored by your vile, Imbecilic, twisted prophet and his dirty hands?
thesailor says
He has skirted round the issue in order to present himself as mature and responsible, prudent even. He conflates Muslims with Islam, which arguably is the fundamental root of the whole difficulty the West seems to have in dealing with it. Muslims are not Islam, they are slaves of Islam. They are, in the sense of being brainwashed from birth into allegiance to it, probably the greatest victims of Islam.
Trying to analyse which Muslims are dangerous and which are not is as useful as counting the angels on a pinhead. Islam is the threat, and it is Islam that should be banned. Banning Muslims is like banning wasps – quite useless if you don’t destroy the nest.
Unlike the poor zombie Muslims, we have the freedom to view Islam dispassionately. Contrary to what this man claims, one does not have to read every word peddled by it in various misunderstood translations, in order to grasp the fundamental problem we face with it. There is plenty enough information out there that any reasonably intelligent person can assemble in order to see Islam for essentially what it is: a vile, immoral, violent, supremacist cult that has nothing whatever to do with religion. It is humanity’s cancer, and needs to be eradicated.
Those who feel the need to read every tiny utterance of Islam before reaching a conclusion would be better to read Future Shock by Alvin Toffler.
Terry Gain says
Great comment. Feminists should have recoiled at the nonsense of 72 Virgins and ( by memory) Sura 4:34.
eduardo odraude says
the sailor,
Unfortunately, we need a lot more people who read “every tiny utterance” and can therefore dominate the information battle space. Or, to put it less cynically, people who can be effective educators and win any debate on the subject.
Johnny Cuyana says
In the USA, stated explicitly in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, our charter national values are the inalienable rights of the individual — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — and the law, of, by and for the people, as necessary to protect and promote these rights fairly and equally for all. IOW, we govern ourselves based on our respect for one and another and our laws. [Whether, and to what degree, we continue to do so, is a matter of considerable debate; however, our shortcomings notwithstanding, these values ARE the foundation of our charter documents. They are, indisputably, integral to our foundations as a nation and a culture.]
In direct contrast and opposition of such, the values of the fundamental death cult muhammedans are based on a centralized command and control ideology/theology, which, in turn, is based on sharia; where individual rights are simply not in the equation; where there is NO self-governance. Fundamentally, the muhammedans want this ideology to be the worldwide law, i.e., their immoral and corrupt caliphate; where, the kafir, i.e., any and all non-believers, is to be eliminated in one way or the other. These have been the “facts”, regarding the values of fundamental muhammedanism, for the past 1400 years. On the face of it, such vermin and such anti-human values are a cancer within our nation and culture.
Most likely, IMO, it is TOO LATE to screen VIGOROUSLY any and all such pro-sharia muhammedans who are already LEGALLY in our country — the lack of such a standard, in recent decades, has been one of the most serious of our national shortcomings … for which we and our children are now, and, will continue, to pay a heavy price; however, my vote is for initiating immediately an immigration program, guided by the MOST VIGOROUS screening of applicants who wish to enter our country on a longer-term or permanent basis, where we demand that all such applicants hold a solid understanding, appreciation, and desire to protect and promote our foundational USA values; where all who do not so hold, particularly those who demonstrate any hint of those muhammedan death cult values, to be rebuked immediately and entirely.
Note: such a screening test will not be perfect — there is no such thing — as we will NEVER be able to identify, and screen out, all who wish to violate our foundational values; however, IMO, such screening — with meaningful consequences for any and all violators — will greatly improve our current misguided and failed [read: politically-motivated] immigration results.
For my vote, I support prudence in the extreme, to the best of our ability, for adjusting our immigration system and policies … so as to prevent the granting of citizenship — and/or any type of longer-term stay in our country — to any and all who do not understand, and/or, wish to violate our foundational values.
In this process, there is no need for hate — and I, as one of many, do not believe Robert Spencer to be any kind of hater — but there is a critical need for extreme prudence to screen-out the vermin and thereby identifying the most beneficial potential new LEGAL USA citizens. We owe this much to ourselves and our future generations.
Terry Gain says
Muslims aren’t content to just embrace their evil and irrational ideology, they want to impose it on the world.
eduardo odraude says
Actually, imposing it on the world is part of their ideology, not an add-on.
rbla says
While I also wish that Derbyshire would be a bit more Islamo-realistic he does make a most important point. There is no constitutional right for non-citizens to immigrate to America. We have the absolute right to select who can come in and where they can come from. In fact I contend that his point is the most critical one despite his not fully understanding the ideology of Islam. It doesn’t matter how right we are about Islam. If they keep increasing as a percent of the population our freedom to say so will be ended and the country will ultimately be Islamized.
gravenimage says
Yes–Muslims should not be in the civilized world.
Krazy Kafir says
Not doubt in my mind he is a coward.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Suffice it to say that Derbyshire need not fear suffering a murder hit from an angry Moslem. They should send him money orders accompanied by thank you notes.
gravenimage says
What makes someone a “hateful Islamophobe”?
…………………….
Apparently having a “bee in your bonnet” over Muslims raping and murdering Infidels…
lebel says
“which are proposals I have never supported, and go much farther than any proposal that I ever have suggested”
OK Mr. Spencer but then why allow Hugh Fitzgerald to argue and garner support for such policies on your site?
Terry Gain says
Well lebel, perhaps Spencer believes in freedom of speech. I think Spencer is our generation’s Churchill – and that is the highest praise I can give – but I believe that the need to ban Muslims in order to preserve democracy is obvious. And it is also clear that the ban is needed because of Ostrich’s like you.
Wellington says
“OK Mr. Spencer but then why allow Hugh Fitzgerald to argue and garner support for such policies on your site?”
Because, lebel, Spencer believes in spirited debate and freedom, as opposed to the uniform, uninformed and unthinking of, let’s see here as examples (among so many), Leftthink, Muslimthink, pseudo-conservativethink, present Vaticanthink, and RINOthink. Besides, what has Fitzgerald ever got wrong about Islam? Go ahead, provide a few examples of Fitzgerald’s “errors.” I say you can’t. You cast aspersions with no back-up. This is the way of cowards of course.
Get this? Of course you don’t. Either, at best, because you’re ignorant about the worst religion of all time; at worst, because you are complicit with the worst religion of all time and thus a thinly-veiled and deliberate enabler of Mo’s creed.
For my money, I’m going with the latter. But even if the former, you’re still culpable enough since willful ignorance of Islam, some 16 years after 9/11 and after over 32,000 documented Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide just since that terrible day for America back in September of 2001, has no excuse anymore.
None. So, whichever, you’re a loser, loser. Only the degree of your deficiency being a variable. Frankly, I’d rate it as “very deficient,” to the point of your siding with iniquity. Refute me. I dare you.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
From what I’ve seen Fitzgerald has never gotten anything wrong about Islam, here or over at New English Review. Good post.
gravenimage says
Once again, appalling apologist for Muslim savagery lebel has *no* problem with violent Jihad, but is quick to criticize anything he can pretend is an inconsistency or error with those opposing these horrors.
sidney penny says
Please provide some examples of
“Hugh Fitzgerald to argue and garner support for such policies on your site?”
warren raymond says
What a smug little prick.
Georg says
Stupid and cowardly. Nice combo.
“In reality, the only reason why I am so many people’s touchstone for hatred and bigotry is because I have been at this so long, and so the charges have been repeated against me thousands of times…”
Of course the above is true, but I’d think the sheer strength of your arguments and presentation are so difficult for propagandists, apologists, and Islamophiles to overcome that name-calling, and worse as we saw in Garland, are all that’s left at their disposal. This twerp can’t defeat you on argumentative grounds so he reverts to something else. He’d make a good Muslim.
gravenimage says
Hear, hear, Georg!
Lydia says
According to these idiots, everyone who is not a muslim is an ‘islamophobe.’
Yes, I hate islam because it ruins innocent lives every day in every way.
Terry Gain says
Is hard to believe that this evil ideology survived WWII.
gravenimage says
Well, they consider cringing dhimmis eager to kiss Muslim butt OK, as well.
Mockingjay says
What makes someone a “hateful Islamophobe”?
– Well, that question isn’t hard to answer: since so many people can’t STAND the Truth, even going so far as calling the speaking of Truth “hate(ful) speech, it follows that the more Truth one – UNCOMPROMISINGLY – speaks, the more “hateful” one is deemed to be.
– It really IS that simple.
And in that way, it actually can be considered a compliment being called the most “hateful” of all…
eduardo odraude says
That statement by Robert Spencer confuses me a bit. I thought he did support at least the first part: “stop permitting Muslims to settle in the U.S.A.” Can anyone clarify my confusion? Has not Robert Spencer supporting ending immigration of Muslims to the US?
gfmucci says
It’s a shame that two people who apparently know and agree about the truth and dangers of Islam resort to dissention and name calling. You are both right. Both of you and I are Islamophobes, and believe that Islam is a dangerous, hateful ideology whose presence would ideally be eliminated from our nation.
MFritz says
New definitions for regressive lefties:
“islamophobe” – saying & believing the truth about islam
“hateful islamophobe” – very convinced about saying & believing the truth about islam
“racist” – someone critisising other people who strongly misbehave due to a minority status
“bigot” – someone having a different opinion in regards to feminism
“nazi” – someone having a different opinion in general
“misogynist” – someone not believing in feminism
“nasty woman” – a self-empowered feminist who critisises Trump but doesn’t talk about Weinstein
“safe space” – completely isolated place where the truth must never be spoken and reality is kept out
Any more additions?
David says
This man appears to live in a very, very narrow world.
John Forbes says
MR & MRS AVERAGE DEMOCRATIC PERSONS IN THE WEST ARE STILL A VERY LONG WAY FROM REALIZING OR UNDERSTANDING THE THREAT OF THIS IDEOLOGY !
THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN RAPED. GANG RAPED & BEATEN HIDE AWAY IN FEAR & SHAME WHILE THE MUSLIM CHILD RAPE SQUADS PROWL & THE POLICE HIDE IN THE HEATED & GUARDED STATION !
THE MEDIA ARE TOLD – FOR THE SAKE OF MULTICULTURALISM & DIVERSITY – DO NOT PRINT EITHER THE ETHNICITY OR THE RELIGION OF THE GANG RAPISTS !
POLICE CATEGORICALLY INSIST RELIGION & RACE ARE IRRELEVENT IN THESE CASES & ISLAMIC TEACHINGS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS !!
MOSQUES CHECKED UNDER COVER SHOW & EXPOSE THE HATRED BEING TAUGHT & THE ABUSE ENCOURAGED !
THE LEFT INSISTS ALONG WITH C.A.I.R. & THE MUSLIM APOLOGISTS ALL OVER THE WEST THAT ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE & VIOLENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM !
I INSIST THAT WE ALL INSIST THAT THE WESTERN POLITICAL PARTIES GET RID OF THE COWARDS IN POWER – STOP TELLING LIES – AND UPHOLD THE LAWS THAT THEY SWORE TO UPHOLD !
NOTHING LESS IS GOOD ENOUGH – NEVER LET HILLARY CLINTON OR CORBYN LEAD ANY COUNTRY & GET RID OF JUSTIN TRUDEAU !!!! TERESA MAY AS WELL BUT ONE MAY BE HARD PRESSED IN THE UK TO FIND A LEADER WITH A BACKBONE!!
James Stamulis says
To that moron i would say it seems that the U.K. has been anything but prudent when it comes to Islam and you are paying for it all the time! Thanks to Obama we are now dealing with what you are!
harbidoll says
they called Paul Revere was called a hater also. No? Oh right, those were more saner times.
Terry says
I hate islam.
Lorensacho says
Why bother responding to guys like that?. You are doing an important job. Let other stand up for you.
George says
I am a proud Islamophobe, in the same vein as those peoples who were subject to Muslim persecution throughout the 1400 years of the Islamic conquests.
Gabriel M says
Hi,
I’m a big fan of your’s and a big fan of John Derbyshire and I think there is a misunderstanding here.
Your mission is to publicize how bad authentic Islam is for non-Muslims (and ultimately for Muslims, too). John Derbyshire’s point is that there’s really no point publicizing this information if we cannot take the only necessary and sufficient step to do anything about it, which is excluding Muslims from western countries.
In this vein, there are other groups that are also undesirable and should be excluded (such as Mexicans with gang connections). As such, the key point to emphasize is that Western nations should adopt sensible immigration and repatriation policies. Until they do this, there is no point in continuing to publicize the dangers of Islam. We can’t reform Islam, we can’t kill all the Muslims, so if we can’t exclude them, we can’t do squat.
So to sum up John Derbyshire’s point, your main argument is that we should spend *more* time thinking about Islam, perhaps that correct in the short term, but what we really want to aim at is a situation where we are thinking about Islam a whole lot *less*.
This reminds me of your spat with Lawrence Auster. There too, I think you really didn’t get his point. However, Auster was a bit sociopathic, while Derbyshire is not, so you should be able to find a way to get along.
sidney penny says
“This reminds me of your spat with Lawrence Auster. There too, I think you really didn’t get his point. ”
And his point was?