Jeff Tayler on the Manchester bombing

One thing that really bothered me after the Manchester and London terrorist attacks was the tendency of some people to immediately express solidarity with Muslims rather than feel sadness for the victims and horror at the event. There’s nothing wrong with trying to prevent a terrorist attack from being used to demonize all Muslims, but to coddle the adherents of an odious religion before mourning the victims of its ideology—well, it rankles me. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about, sent out before the terrorists were even identified as Muslims:

The other ones that bothered me were the calls to not become “Islamophobic” after the attacks. Well, if anything inspires “Islamophobia”, which I take to mean the fear of Islam and not bigotry against Muslims, it is such attacks. Each attack committed in the name of Islam makes me more Islamophobic.

The failure to face the implications of Islamic ideology that is taken seriously by its adherents is the topic of Jeff Tayler’s new piece in Quillette, “Manchester’s children and the Regressive Left“. Its theme is the refusal of the Regressive Left to take religious motivations seriously, and, indeed, to become more enamored of and defensive about Islam with each terrorist attack.

An example of this—and the main object of Tayler’s ire—is a piece by Islamophile Shaun King in New York’s Daily News, We must never hate Islam, or Muslims, because of the violence of its fake followers.” Well, I disagree twice with just the headline: yes, I do hate Islam, as I hate all religions that have pernicious and oppressive doctrines; and the followers of those doctrines weren’t “fake”. Ask a member of ISIS, or those who slaughter apostates in Bangladesh, if they consider themselves “true” Muslims. After all, ISIS has said in its own magazine, Dabiq, that they are murdering primarily because Islam calls for the extinction of nonbelievers. After giving a list of reasons “Why we hate you and why we fight you” (of which the first four out of six are explicitly religious), ISIS says this—and read it carefully:

What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you.

Yet King, the Big Expert on Islam, chooses to ignore the terrorists’ own stated motivation. choosing to call them “fake Muslims”. Here’s his ridiculous claim:

We should all be upset at what happened in Manchester, but what happened there is no excuse to slide into Islamophobia. Whoever did this is no more a Muslim than those who lynched African Americans during Jim Crow were Christians. Wearing the garb of a faith no more makes you a follower of that faith than me wearing a Steph Curry jersey makes me a Golden State Warrior.

. . . we must always resist the urge to throw an entire race of people under the bus even if we truly despise whiteness or white privilege or white supremacy.

Taylor readily notes that most Muslims are neither violent nor approve of terrorism, but he does say this:

So adherents to an ideology constitute a race? Islam is a faith-based ideology, with nothing biologically inherent about it. How would King account for (white) Taliban-combatant John Walker Lindh, or the thwarted shoe-bomber Richard Reid? What would he say of the European converts who joined ISIS? What about Muslim-majority Albania and Kosovo? By King’s illogic, we should declare red-state Republicans a race, since they mostly share a skin color and dogmatically professed beliefs. Religions are thought systems—thought systems conceived in ages of ignorance, asserted without evidence, and deployed to control human behavior—above all, female behavior.

(In a similar vein, imagine the storm of popular outrage that would erupt if any modern-day political party wrote into its charter sex-slavery, wife-beating, and clitorectomies; declared said charter to be immutable and sacrosanct; announced its headquarters stood on sacred ground; and promised to kill anyone who dared leave the party. Even the reddest of red-state Republicans would never go this far.)

And let’s be clear: King urges us to look benignly upon an ideology that does endorse taking female captives as sex slaves, instructs husbands on how to beat their wives, values women’s testimony as half that of men, and sanctions the barbaric butchery that is female genital mutilation. These tenets are matters of scripture, not distortions concocted by a few renegades from the faith.

King then produces the “fake Muslim” argument, including the unctuous “some of my best friends are Muslims” claim, which, even though it may be true, is irrelevant to Tayler’s point.


Of all the friends I have, none are more consistently warm, peaceful, supportive, and kind than my Muslim friends. They are actual Muslims, though. In a day and age of fake news and fake politicians, perhaps nothing is more dangerous than fake Muslims and Christians — who cloak themselves in the accouterments of religion but do so for the asinine and insincere reasons.


. . . Is there an Islam-apologist who does not trot out the “no true Scotsman” dodge? (Apparently not.) In any case, who granted King the right to impugn the piety of the Manchester attacker, Salman Abedi, and on what basis does he do so? A committed Muslim who did not hide his faith, Abedi, we have every reason to think, believed he was committing an act of jihad, for which he would be rewarded with instant access to paradise. Jihad and martyrdom are fundamental tenets of mainstream Islam.

. . . Of all the friends I have,” King tells us, “none are more consistently warm, peaceful, supportive, and kind than my Muslim friends.” This line is too transparently silly to be worth refuting; no one is contending that Muslims are not nice as people. At issue, we recall, is the motivation of the Manchester attacker and those like him. For King, “fake Muslims and Christians—who cloak themselves in the accoutrements of religion but do so for the asinine and insincere reasons” amount to a grave danger. An editor at the New York Daily News would have done well to ask King to state clearly these “asinine and insincere reasons” as well as the criteria by which he so reliably discerns “fake” followers of religions from “true” ones. In another era, this was the business of the Holy Inquisition’s murderous sleuths.

Tayler’s piece contains much more, but go read it for yourself.


  1. Posted June 6, 2017 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    “the tendency of some people to immediately express solidarity with Muslims rather than feel sadness for the victims and horror at the event.”

    There is absolutely nothing to suggest that they aren’t doing both. Indeed Mensch (who I am no fan of) was a Conservative politician in the UK parliament (and quite far to the right even for them) and I’m quite sure, is entirely empathetic with the victims and their families.

    As for the “fake muslim” claim. The extremist terrorists are no more muslim, not live like normal muslims, than David Koresh did a christian one.

    BTW, this enforced grief that is imposed on us by the media is causing a type of subservience I’ve not seen in my lifetime. I’m sad and angry about the terrorist attacks but I’m not in grief. Grief is for those who have lost someone they know or love.

    • mikeyc
      Posted June 6, 2017 at 9:40 am | Permalink

      “The extremist terrorists are no more muslim, not live like normal muslims, than David Koresh did a christian one.”

      I’m not sure I’m reading this right but did you just make a No True Scotsman argument? After the post you just read you’re doubling down?

      I do hope I’ve misread your comment (the wording is…odd).

      • Posted June 6, 2017 at 9:53 am | Permalink

        not should have read nor.

        I’ve never been entirely convinced by the No True Scotsman fallacy. It assumes any particular group of people has any sort of control over what anyone else in the world does in their name.

        They don’t of course. That’s true of any group, religious or not.

        • JohnE
          Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:05 am | Permalink

          “It assumes any particular group of people has any sort of control over what anyone else in the world does in their name.”

          Actually, no. In the case of religion, it just rejects the arrogant and preposterous idea that one group of people who adhere to a particular supernatural ideology can unilaterally grant themselves the right to decide that another group of people with a different interpretation of the same supernatural ideology are not correctly interpreting that ideology. Note that we see this same arrogance with some fundamentalist christian groups insist that Roman Catholics are not “christians.” Stooshie, if by the grace of “god” or some other supernatural being YOU have been delegated the authority to decide which religious beliefs are the true beliefs and which are false, could you PLEASE get busy sorting all of those out for us so that we can all know once and for all what the one true religion is (if any)? Your assistance in this regard would be greatly appreciated!

          • Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:11 am | Permalink

            I’m not religious.

            There is no “right” and “wrong” Christianity (by theological standards) as far as I’m concerned. The same holds for Islam.

            However, I am willing to accept what the majority of Christians would regards as christian. In the same vein, I take the same approach with Islam.

            BTW I only take that approach with religion as it, by definition, has no objective measure of truth.

            To do otherwise would be the fallacy of composition,

            I’d rather their was no religion, but there is, for now.

            • JohnE
              Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:41 am | Permalink

              Let’s just face reality: many of us on the left are understandably concerned that all muslims will be wrongly tarred with the sins of the few, such that some believe the easiest way to side-step the problem is to pretend that the radical muslims aren’t really muslims. However, I think it’s silly to suggest that there can be any “correct” interpretation of a supernatural ideology, or that the majority of the adherents to that ideology have any rational ability to deny that certain others are not participants in that ideology when these other participants insist that they are. No one today seriously argues that that perpetrators of the Inquisition weren’t roman catholic, just because because the catholic church today would REALLY like to disown them.

              • Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:43 am | Permalink

                However, I think it’s silly to suggest that there can be any “correct” interpretation of a supernatural ideology,”

                Yes. Read my post. That is, quite specifically, what I said.

              • JohnE
                Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:50 am | Permalink

                Stooshie — Yes, but then you backtracked and said you were “willing to accept what the majority” of the believers in either either islam or christianity accepted as true. That’s the confusion.

          • Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:13 am | Permalink

            BTW Islam is just as varied and just as “multicultural” (internally) as christianity. Christianity has many different sects from Catholic to Orthodox to Presbyterian etc …

            Islam is the same.

            • darrelle
              Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:53 am | Permalink

              This does not support your argument against the No True Scotsman fallacy. Quite the contrary.

              The same applies to this . . .

              blockquote>“It assumes any particular group of people has any sort of control over what anyone else in the world does in their name.

              They don’t of course. That’s true of any group, religious or not.”

              Both of those arguments seem to pretty clearly support the No True Scotsman fallacy.

              “However, I am willing to accept what the majority of Christians would regards as christian. In the same vein, I take the same approach with Islam.”

              If you truly think so then you really should study the results from the past several years of studies such as those done by Pew Research Center about the extent of certain beliefs among Islamic groups over a wide range of countries. The data very clearly does not support that the attitudes and beliefs of extremist Islamic groups are rare or that they are substantially different from the majority of Muslims in many Muslim societies. The only real difference is that the extremists are willing to actually pull the trigger. But a significant percentage, very often the majority, of Muslims in many countries around the world say they agree with many of the attitudes and beliefs that the extremists proclaim as justification for their actions.

              Are you unaware of the data? Do you think it is flawed? It is not a weak signal so that is very doubtful. Do you not believe what the Muslims answering the polls say about their own beliefs?

              • Posted June 6, 2017 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

                + 1

              • somer
                Posted June 7, 2017 at 2:09 am | Permalink

                Also the obligation of Jihad on infidels – to convert them and regardless of the absence or presence of wrongs done to Muslims –
                Is spelt out in the law books of the Sunni schools – e.g. even the more moderate of them, the Hanifi schools – Hidaya commentary of the Islamic laws. It can be obtained in up to date translation from Islamic bookstores (or used to be available) making this clear but it can be seen online in original 18th Century English translation by Alexander Hamilton – Institutes section from page 153


            • Posted June 6, 2017 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

              I think that Islam is not as multicultural as Christianity. There are many Christian-majority and historically Christian countries, some good, some mediocre, some bad. There are many Muslim-majority countries, all of them bad (sorry for my rudeness to any patriot of them who is reading). The least bad ones are those in which the Muslim population is least Muslim, such as in Albania. The stronger the Islamic belief, the worse the country, such as Saudi Arabia. So we have no diversity, we have a spectrum that is bad throughout, like the spectrum of a disorder.

          • Sastra
            Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:37 am | Permalink

            I’ve been forced to grant that the No True Scotsman Fallacy sometimes isn’t a fallacy at all because it’s possible that what’s at issue isn’t interpretation or heresy, but definition.

            If someone sincerely claims to be a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist, or whatever BUT is so far on the fringe, so lacking in the very basics of definitional belief, that an objective and reasonably prudent person would reject them as a member of that group — then it can be argued that they’re No True Scotsman: they watched Braveheart once. The categories in religion are so fluid they can sometimes slop over and run along the floor. I’ve met “Christians ” who think Christ was a myth, the Bible is mostly fables, and “God” is only a word we use to describe whatever we care about. If I refuse to count that as a “form” of Christianity, I think I might have a legitimate case. Same for self-proclaimed “atheists” who believe in God, but feel inadequate before Him.

            So we do draw lines. It’s just a matter then of not drawing them in places which are convenient rather than warranted.

            • Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:44 am | Permalink

              That’s a reasonable approach. So. Are the Islamist terrorists Muslims or not? If they are, would criticism of Islam be acceptable to you?

              • Sastra
                Posted June 6, 2017 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

                Yes, they’re Muslims. They fall inside the broadest definition.

            • darrelle
              Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:54 am | Permalink

              “So we do draw lines. It’s just a matter then of not drawing them in places which are convenient rather than warranted.”

              As expected you cut right through to the heart of the matter and make it clear. Nicely said.

            • Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:57 am | Permalink

              “So we do draw lines. It’s just a matter then of not drawing them in places which are convenient rather than warranted.”

              Who says where the convenient line is and which the “real” line is?

              • Sastra
                Posted June 6, 2017 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

                It’s a matter of debate, of course, because there are always going to be gray areas, as well as some major criteria which may or may not be necessary. I suspect that one way to be objective is to make sure that “rules” are being applied evenly across nationalities or religions. If Uncle Angus is not counted as a Scotsman because he never lived in Scotland, then no fair saying you’re “French” because your parents met in Paris.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted June 6, 2017 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

                That such lines at times may be faint — and that the cases very close to the lines, sometimes difficult to distinguish — provides no excuse for refusing to draw such lines where meaningful criteria exist.

            • Jeremy Tarone
              Posted June 6, 2017 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

              Large religions usually started as outliers or fringe, especially in areas where strict adherence was enforced by violence. Yet they persisted and continue to persist, as ISIS and their ilk show.

              Which is why the line is so hard to draw, especially for those not in a religion who see them all as being fiction. It’s just a very large spectrum.

              Westboro Baptists are reviled by a great many Christians, yet they seem to have the truer reading of the scriptures on which Christianity is based.
              I would tend to agree with Westboro Baptists (if I bought any of it) since the Sermon on the Mount states Jesus said the Law is still in effect until heaven and Earth passes. But then I think basing one’s morals on the Bible is silly, dangerous and one big hot mess of cherry picking, regardless of who it is who is doing it.

              When there are awful texts in God’s book sooner or later someone is going to try to enforce it. After all, it’s almighty God’s words.
              History shows us today’s fringe may be tomorrows mainline religion.
              ISIS may be fringe but many Muslim countries are becoming ever more extremist and are leaning closer towards ISIS interpretations. Homosexuals are being rounded up and disappeared in Chechnya. They are routinely arrested, imprisoned and killed in many other Muslim countries, as are apostates. Atheists are blasphemers are killed on the street.

              ISIS may be fringe but they are not that fringe.

              Virtually none of those Christian sects or Muslims seem to care what I think (as if that’s any different from anyone else). They all continue to believe they are the real Christians or real Muslims regardless of which ones I (or we) think are or are not real.

              Deciding which sects are real Christians (or Muslims) is a little like trying to choose which people claiming to have been abducted by aliens are real alien abductees by which colour tinfoil hat they wear.

        • Craw
          Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:52 am | Permalink

          The ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy is prevarication: changing the definition after you are refuted.
          A:”No cats are black”
          B:”But my cat is black.”
          A:”But yours isn’t a real cat because you are blond.”
          You *disagree* that A is perpetrating a fallacy?

          Your logic is wonky in other ways. You say no-one can specify the correct interpretation of a religion. But then you do just that by asserting that these killers were not real muslims, because they allegedly do not follow a correct interpretation of Islam.

          • GBJames
            Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:55 am | Permalink

            There’s plenty more wonky logic out there if you look at Stooshie’s blog.

          • Sastra
            Posted June 6, 2017 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

            Well put, though, as I’ve been pointing out, it can get complicated in other ways.

            A: “No cats are black.”
            B: “But my cat is black.”
            A:”… That’s a dog.”
            B:”I consider them to be the same.”

    • Posted June 6, 2017 at 9:44 am | Permalink

      Mensch tweeted that her thoughts were involved with EVERYBODY involved in the London attacks: a bit ambiguous. And then she said not to make any assumptions about who did it–ten minutes BEFORE she stood with her Muslim brothers and sisters. Why would she say that unless she’d made an assumption?

      Some of us are sad for those who were killed because we’ve seen others lose loved ones suddenly. The media may say it’s a tragedy, but you don’t feel grief unless you’re empathic. And that can’t be forced.

    • Jim Smith
      Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:09 am | Permalink

      The killing of non-Muslims is entirely consistent with the Koran. I think you commit to ‘no-true intelligent person would say that’ fallacy.

      • Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:45 am | Permalink

        Under your interpretation of the Qu’raan.

        Under many interpretations of the bible it’s OK to beat slaves and stone lying children to death.

        • Craw
          Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:57 am | Permalink

          We agree about the Bible. So what? Why is pointing out something about the Bible a cogent response to a claim about the Koran? Are you under the impression WEIT is an online branch of Moody Bible College?

          • Posted June 6, 2017 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

            I was illustrating that pointing out a violent passage in the Qu’uran doesn’t mean those who commit violence in the name of islam are the “real” muslims.

            • Posted June 6, 2017 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

              But stooshie, that’s the problem. The people in ISIS claim they ARE real Muslims. Who are you to say they aren’t? Do you think they are lying about their motivations?

              Look, I think everyone here understands where you’re coming from – most Muslims have no interest in nail bombing children.

              But some do. Insofar as their terrorist inclinations are driven by their religion, don’t you think their religious beliefs should be criticized? The thing I think you miss and many here point out, even those who have no interest in nail-bombing children share some of those beliefs.

            • darrelle
              Posted June 6, 2017 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

              You are the one who is arguing for real and not-real Muslims. I’d bet that most people you are talking to here are not making that mistake. They think that both your undoubtedly decent Muslim friends and the fervent members of ISIS are all Muslims. Because they understand that any group is going to contain a wide spectrum of behaviors, attitudes and beliefs.

              You come here and accuse the OP and other commentors of thinking that all Muslims are the same, despite clear statements to the contrary.

            • Jeremy Tarone
              Posted June 6, 2017 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

              Violence such as stoning adulterers or killing apostates? There is a lot of support for both in the Muslim world, outside of ISIS.

        • darrelle
          Posted June 6, 2017 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

          That is true. So what. Are you saying that because Christians do it we should give Muslim’s a pass when they do it?

          Have you ever read the Bible or the Koran? In their entirety? Your implied meaning of the word “interpretation” is bogus in this context. Both the Bible and the Koran unambiguously encourage, command and glorify behavior and ethics that by modern standards are reprehensible. No tortured rationalizations are necessary to interpret either one of them as being consistent with visiting atrocities on outsiders. Merely a straight-forward reading of the words. Why should anything else be expected of religious ideologies from those eras?

          “Interpreting” all of the morally reprehensible parts of the Bible or Koran to be metaphorical is nice, but being nice doesn’t make it a more true interpretation. Whatever that means.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted June 6, 2017 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      One of the rules of being a Muslim is that reciting the Shahada makes you one. An apostate is anyone who goes back on that declaration of faith. Those who say Islamist terrorists are not true Muslims are saying that when those people recite the Shahada it doesn’t count.

      If that’s the case, it actually means the Shahada means nothing when anyone says it, not just Islamist terrorists, because it’s impossible to know for sure whether someone is at some point in their life going to commit an act that others in the religion wish to deny. The whole religion would fall apart.

    • JonLynnHarvey
      Posted June 6, 2017 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

      Hmmm. It’s a bit easier to dismiss David Koresh or Jim Jones as “not real” Christians, then say,…the Spanish Inquisition, or the widespread rationalization of slavery that existed prevalently in ante-bellum America.

      The ambiguous and open-ended nature of the holy books of Western religions makes it harder to discern just what is the ‘real’ teaching of a religion.
      Indeed, Bart Ehrman has argued that the four Gospels are four separate religions, not merely four schools of thought in a single religion.

      As they teach in liberal seminaries, every religious tradition has a “canon within the canon” which prioritizes certain texts as of primary importance and others as secondary. But not all offshoots of a religion make the same choices.

      Some Christians hold the pivotal text of the Bible to be the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as..”) and the two Great Commandments to love God with all your heart and love thy neighbor as thyself.
      But other Christians think the central text of the Bible is John 3:16 and choose to read it to mean that all non-believers are damned souls.

      Peter Hitchens accused his brother Christopher (in their one public debate) of setting up a “Heads I win- tails you lose” scenario when the latter argued that the good deeds of Martin Luther King and Dietrich Bonhoeffer were really due to their humanist principles rather than to Christian ones.

      Now, IMO there is some justice to Peter’s argument (though it was about the only idea of his I even half-agreed with during the entire exchange), but the RegLeft goes the opposite way with terrorism. NO evil act of Muslims is to be attributed to religious conviction, but good ones can be.

  2. Posted June 6, 2017 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    I’m not disagreeing with your general point, but Louise Mensch is a bad example to pick. As far as she is concerned the whole event was orchestrated by Russian intelligence as part of some false flag operation. I’m not about to try to pick apart the details of the conspiracy theories she is wading in because I only have 2000 weeks left to live.

    • Posted June 6, 2017 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

      Wow, to what craziness some people will go to vindicate Islam! (I am no fan of Russia, but this is indeed crazy.)

  3. GBJames
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 9:32 am | Permalink

    I do welcome every column Jeffrey Tayler writes. This one was no exception.

  4. Carey
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 9:48 am | Permalink

    Why do so many conflate people who practice Islam with the bad ideas of Wahabi Islam? The people have human rights, the ideology doesn’t. I can understand why someone with a low IQ could have trouble with abstract thinking. But there’s little excuse for intelligent, educated people to fall for this illogical thinking.

    • Posted June 6, 2017 at 9:54 am | Permalink


    • JohnE
      Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:13 am | Permalink

      Why do so many people conflate christianity with the practice of the thousands of different christian sects? Surely, someone out there (Stooshie, are you listening?), can tell us which one is the true christian sect.

    • darrelle
      Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:20 am | Permalink

      Do you mean “confuse” rather than “conflate?” Not trying to be sarcastic, seriously trying to correctly interpret what you mean to say.

      • Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:27 am | Permalink

        Not possible. Carey has a high IQ, you see.

        • Carey Haug
          Posted June 6, 2017 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

          My understanding of conflate is to combine two different things and create one entity. For example, combine people who are Muslim and the teachings of the Koran and you get Islam. Then you start making generalizations such as Islam is a religion of peace.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted June 6, 2017 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

      Neither Jerry nor Jeff Tayler did that.

      What gives you the right to say that Wahhabis are any less Muslim than non-Wahhabis?

      • Carey Haug
        Posted June 6, 2017 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

        I was not referring to Jerry or Jeff Taylor. I agree with them. I was just wondering why so many intelligent people believe that Islam is a peaceful religion and that no Muslim should ever be criticized.

        Wahhabis are definitely Muslims. They believe every word of their holy book and act accordingly. The $64,000 questions is who gets to define who is a true Muslim?

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted June 6, 2017 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

          Sorry I misunderstood. And to your last question. EXACTLY! Who the hell are all these people who insist they know what a Muslim is? Most aren’t even Muslim.

    • Posted June 6, 2017 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

      Because the bad ideas of Islam (and it is not Wahabi Islam only) are carried by people who practice Islam and bring doom and gloom by their actions. The Koran may be an odious book, but if it quietly stays in the library, it will bring no harm. It is people believing in it who bring harm. The British and French get bombed and mowed because they made the mistake to let in too many people who practice Islam.

      I do not think that your accusation is justified.

    • Jim Smith
      Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

      By your low IQ and lack of abstract thinking I can say the American South does not have a problem with racism. Just maybe some people in the American South are racist, maybe. And besides, like your genius buddy stooshie says, no true southerner…

      • Posted June 7, 2017 at 4:19 am | Permalink

        You have committed a Roolz viplation against another commenter (name calling) and you’re banned. Bye.

  5. jay
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    In attempt to create an image of Muslim solidarity, it appears CNN and subsequently BBC resorted to fake news.

    • Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:01 am | Permalink

      Are you suggesting Muslims don’t condemn those attacks?

      The mayor of London is muslim and condemned them outright.

      Muslims have been condemning every attack that has happened. Including those that are my friends and those that I work with.

      • jay
        Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:21 am | Permalink

        I’m suggesting the news media is completely untrustworthy.

        We all know individual Muslims who are quite peaceful. Though, however,most do support Sharia law at some level (the Koran demands it) even if they would rather impose it through the courts or the vote

        • Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:41 am | Permalink

          “most do support Sharia law at some level ”

          I’m not entirely sure that’s true. Also “at some level” could mean anything. It could mean they just support fasting at Ramadan.

          “the Koran demands it”

          The bible also demands that you beat your slaves.

          I know a number of muslims and absolutely none of them support Sharia law.

          • GBJames
            Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:47 am | Permalink

            For your consideration: Support for Sharia around the world.

            • Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:50 am | Permalink

              Interesting choice of countries. With quite a few caveats in the footnotes too.

              • Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:10 am | Permalink

                I don’t get it Stooshie. Are you suggesting by this comment that the people in those “interesting choice of countries” are not true muslims?

                Unlike your friends, of course.

              • GBJames
                Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:12 am | Permalink

                It is largely what constitutes the “Muslim World”. Of course, in some such countries, surveys (Saudi Arabia) are not allowed.

                You can read more here.

              • Craw
                Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:28 am | Permalink

                “Interesting choice of countries”. I take that to be an attempt to minimize the importance of the chart, by suggesting it was selected per tendentious criteria. It was selected to include those countries with majority muslim provinces. If you look closely you will see it comprises the overwhelming majority of the muslims in the world.

              • GBJames
                Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:40 am | Permalink

                Possibly you would find support for sharia among Muslims in the UK to be of more interest?

              • jay
                Posted June 7, 2017 at 7:33 am | Permalink

                “choice of countries’ includes virtually any country where they have gotten a majority

          • Posted June 6, 2017 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

            They should not support fasting at Ramadan. It is despicable to shame people who want to eat or – horror! – drink water.
            As for what “at some level” means, the European experience is that it means losing free speech.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted June 6, 2017 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

      Ironic that you claim “the news media is [sic] completely untrustworthy” yet link to Gateway Pundit, home of “the dumbest man on the internet.”

      • Posted June 6, 2017 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

        This is just an indication how serious the problem is.

        • Craw
          Posted June 6, 2017 at 7:53 pm | Permalink


        • Ken Kukec
          Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

          The Gateway Pundit item cited by “jay” above, regarding the alleged staging of news by CNN, has been thoroughly debunked.

  6. Jacques Hausser
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    “Even the reddest of red-state Republicans would never go this far.”
    I’m not so certain…

  7. Randy schenck
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    Nobody gets to the matter better than Tayler. The ignorance of Shaun King – is it from his religion or his regressive left ideas? Maybe it is a combination of both.

  8. Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    This is a Very sensitive topic, this was expected the moment Germany and other European countries took in refugees. I remember watching that and thinking,” bad move” because as a Kenyan, I know how for centuries we’ve paid a high price for taking in refugees from Somali and are now having to close camps.
    The ideology that Islam is a peaceful religion that’s peddled around, in my opinion, is fake. Having read the Quran, I’d say it’s not peaceful at all. To argue that it’s peaceful, should start from the Qur’an and why does it preach war? I feel for refugees but but a country is first responsible for its own, before it crosses boundaries

    • Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:29 am | Permalink


    • Posted June 6, 2017 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

      I am sorry for your country. No good goes unpunished!

    • Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

      It cannot be ruled out that potential terrorists are among the refugees. However, they seem to be rather third-generation immigrants.

      A reason might be that 1st generation immigrants to some degree decided where to go, and stay, and founded a community. The 2nd generation might still have found a place, but it is the 3rd that seems to often have no perspective and is stuck between identities.

      It seems, polarization and effective youth-work by radical religious groups give such young muslims a sense of purpose. Suicide is also a leading death among young men, and it seems Islam can channel this into terrorism.

      There are valid concerns with no vetting refugees properly, and accepting too many at once, but they seem to play no pronounced role in terrorism.

      • Posted June 7, 2017 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

        Radicalism especially from where I come from is mostly by Muslim converts. Terrorists attacks are planned in an area in Nairobi where people are predominantly Muslims (Kenyan and immigrants), and the North of Kenya where most refugee camps are and people are predominantly Muslims. CCTV from Westgate Mall attack showed those terrorists doing their evening Salah while they’re under siege. From Kenya’s history, I’d say that there’s a strong positive correlation between taking in refugees and terrorism.

  9. Ken Kukec
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    Jeffrey Tayler has become our Mencken. Indeed, I’d be surprised if Tayler hasn’t patterned his prose after the Bard of Baltimore — the same blend of high rhetoric, low insult, mordant wit, and sometimes recondite vocabulary. And, of course, the same scathing scorn for religion, too.

  10. J. Quinton
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    Ironically, the calls that there are some “fake” Muslims is the reason why we’re having terrorist attacks by Muslims in the first place. Of course, it’s the terrorists themselves who first came up with that argument, and is why most Islamic terrorist attacks are against other Muslims.

    Claiming that there’s a “fake” and “real” version of a religion is what causes violence. What other recourse do religious people have when there’s no objective method for this determination?

    I’m actually not the one who came up with this argument so I’m not taking credit 🙂 This is actually one of the main theses behind the book Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence by Biblical scholar (and atheist/agnostic) Hector Avalos.

  11. Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    I’ve written a short piece on this very subject myself. It’s a bit longish to post here. I’ll post it on my own blog soon in order to expose it to public ridicule.

    Yes, it’s absolutely in line with official Islamic dogma for Muslims to commit atrocities in the name of god…as it is with just about every major religion.

  12. Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    Mensch is a twat.

  13. Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    Both Muslims and Christians have sacred texts that can be interpreted to support terror and violence. The point here is to show support for that majority of muslim people who reject that interpretation of the scripture.

    I’m an atheist now, but was once a peace-loving christian. I can see the hatred in the Bible but never took that part of it seriously even when I was a believer.

    • Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:46 am | Permalink

      “I can see the hatred in the Bible but never took that part of it seriously even when I was a believer.”

      Which is why so many believers have a problem believing religion motivates bad behavior, because it never motivated them.

      • Posted June 6, 2017 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

        Good point. But there are believers whose bad behavior IS motivated by their religion. How do the ones who are not so motivated convince their fellows who are to change?

        Therein lies a solution to the Islamist terrorism problem.

        • somer
          Posted June 7, 2017 at 2:39 am | Permalink

          Telling people that Muslim trials and Islamic violence is mostly our fault adds to the brainwashing effect of the religion. Saying the problems are mostly with the religion and only changing the nature of the religion starting with insisting it have a historical approach to its beginnings and formation – would help enormously

  14. Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    If King can so reliably discern “fake” followers of religion from “true” ones, he should go to work for homeland security, unless he’s willing to admit that you can’t tell the fake ones from the “consistently warm, peaceful, supportive” ones until they blow themselves up. Which would make that the only discernable difference.

  15. Sastra
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    I prefer the term Muslimophobia to Islamophobia because it distinguishes between a fundamentally harmful or dangerous ideology and the many people who go all over the board when it comes to interpreting and following it.

    Recently I watched a documentary which followed the lives of the early 20th century Medford sisters, who grew up very close but ended up on opposite sides of the political spectrum: two fascists, and a communist. The intelligent, charming, warm and loving girls who became Nazis and hung out with Hitler were not dangerous, were not cruel, and would have made wonderful friends and neighbors. The same was true throughout Europe. A lot of average, normal people got interested in some aspect of a terrible ideology which didn’t seem so terrible if you just focused on the good part — or what seemed like it when little was demanded. For all the Medford girls, it started out as concern for the poor.

    • Colin McLachlan
      Posted June 6, 2017 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

      Would that perhaps be the Mitfordsisters?

      • Sastra
        Posted June 6, 2017 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

        Yes, thanks.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted June 6, 2017 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

        I recall an interesting piece C. Hitchens wrote about those lasses in his column at The Atlantic.

        • Posted June 6, 2017 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

          Thanks. That was typical Hitchens; amazing all he can say in a few words. Man, I miss his writing.

  16. Tom
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    There is a problem when an individual tries to act out their fantasies in real life.
    As religions are only pernicious fantasies what we see now especially in radical islam is the acting out of such fantasies.
    I can only assume that here in the UK the apologists are trying to ensure that the next muslim terrorists attacks are not directed at them, a somewhat futile exercise.

  17. Jeremy Tarone
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    “Whoever did this is no more a Muslim than those who lynched African Americans during Jim Crow were Christians.”

    The claim might be more accurate if he used the example of the Church killing of witches since there is scriptures that specifically support the killing of witches.
    Just as ISIS is adhering to the texts of the Quran.

    • Harrison
      Posted June 6, 2017 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

      There is a deliberate muddying of the waters and attempt to conflate non-ideological crimes that happen to be committed by Christians and atheists with the ideologically driven crimes of terror.

    • Jim Smith
      Posted June 7, 2017 at 12:22 am | Permalink

      The fact that you need to give us a 300 year old history lesson about Christianity to talk about current affairs in Islam about says it all.

      • Posted June 7, 2017 at 4:26 am | Permalink

        There are plenty of christian terrorist groups around the world. We just tend not to call them terrorists because they’re “one of us”.

        WACO, Oklahoma bombing, Abortion doctors being murdered, Murder of MP Jo Cox, Atlanta Olympic bomber, …..

        • Harrison
          Posted June 7, 2017 at 6:35 am | Permalink

          “one of us”

          Are you aware of what site you’re posting on right now?

          • Posted June 7, 2017 at 6:42 am | Permalink

            By “one of us” I meant the west in general.

  18. Posted June 6, 2017 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    I would hope that most of us would be like the men on the MAX train in Portland, OR that tried to help two high school girls that were being harassed.

    I hate wahabism in any religion it is taught in. Why must we teach hate and insist that all human beings hold the same beliefs? NO! Why must we seem incapable of recognizing “others” as related to us. I must admit, many of my brothers and sisters hold viewpoints that I find abhorrent. They return the favor at times. Try living in brutal cultural conditions in ghettos (or elsewhere comparable) to find out how “easy” it is to be humane. You might not survive.

    I’m sharing a simplistic poem I wrote many years ago that addresses my desire that brothers and sisters not injure and kill each other.


    Our brotherhood is older
    than enmity.
    We were already brothers
    in prehistory,
    eons before we chose to walk
    two-footed on the ground;
    before we honed intelligence
    on tools of stick and stone;
    long before we tilled soil
    or tamed beasts into cattle.
    Today, in city warrens,
    as in the natal garden,
    we share the same light
    and cast like shadows.
    Brother, we are
    together in this thing.

    • Posted June 6, 2017 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

      Very good. Well done.

      You might get trouble from some regressive leftists for “erasing” women and trans people and otherkin and….I can’t keep up.. the point is you had brothers, not sisters in the poem. Post this over at an unnamed blog and you will be literally hitler.

      But no matter….very nice poem.

      • Posted June 7, 2017 at 10:43 am | Permalink

        Thanks for the kind response.

        Just taking Biblical elements as told or written. At least they were aware that there had to have been a mother. But, otherwise, not many women were mentioned in Old Testament Genesis. Obviously Cain and Abel must have had sisters to procreate with or the gene pool would have died out, but we have no names for them, right?!

        I obviously was playing around with the “brotherhood” notion of the mafia “Cosa Nostra”. Don’t remember there being a “sisterhood”. We know what women were good for in such organizations, right?!

        I have lived a long life and can hardly tolerate current attempts at erasing history. Not teaching or acknowledging our past behaviors does not make the behavior change, and I want it to change. We now seem to have education by baseball bat at Evergreen State in Washington.

  19. Denise
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    Shaun King is at the Daily News? I used to read him when he blogged at DailyKos a few years ago. He played fast and loose with the facts. His fans seemed to think it was okay because he was communicating some deeper truth even when he was making stuff up.

    He’s no journalist. I don’t know how he gets away with calling himself one.

  20. Jim Smith
    Posted June 6, 2017 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

    When only 5 out of a hundred people get sick from drinking the water in a community, it is a problem, not just for the 5 out of a hundred people who get sick from the water. The community has a problem. People are getting sick from drinking the water. You figure out what is wrong with the water and you correct it. It is the communities problem. Saying ‘it’s only a problem for the members of the community who get sick from drinking the water.” is no response, it is an evasion of reality.

    And people will continue to get sick from drinking the water.

    • Posted June 7, 2017 at 8:36 am | Permalink

      You are using different names at different sites. Please stick to a single pseudonym.

  21. peepuk
    Posted June 7, 2017 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

    How hideous these attacks are, how annoying the claims of communistic-leftists are, I don’t think that “that we’re teetering on the brink of civilizational suicide”.

    Terrorism is an act committed by people who have no power or acceptable ideas. Their only way to get attention is to commit horrible acts (that doesn’t mean we should let them have their way).

    And yes, lets face it, the political aspects of Islam are not compatible with liberal democratic values.

  22. Posted June 8, 2017 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    I put zero stock in the document “Why we hate you”. And not just because its authors do not consider themselves bound in any way to tell you the truth.

    Ask an average American, “are you influenced by ads?” The number of negative responses would put the advertising industry out of business, if it were anywhere close to the truth. It isn’t. People generally have little insight into the exact reasons why they do things.

    The Koran may command various atrocities, but Osama bin Laden didn’t actually get Al Qaeda going until American troops had been stationed in Saudi during the first Gulf War, pissing bin Laden off. After the second Gulf War, the Shiite dominated government gave Iraqi Sunnis no respect and little security, and many of them turned to ISIS. But never mind these, and many similar historical events! I’m sure the real reason for this wave of violence is that by pure coincidence, at this juncture, someone suddenly noticed those violent passages in the Koran that had been there all along. It’s the religion, stupid!


%d bloggers like this: