Linda Sarsour lies again; blames ISIS on the West

Here we have Feminist and Leftist Hero Linda Sarsour continuing her campaign to whitewash the nastier bits of Islam. And here she takes on the nastiest bit: ISIS. How does she excuse the Islamic State? Easy, it’s the West’s fault!  That, of course, doesn’t explain why ISIS finds it necessary to kill and torture people who are fellow Muslims (viz. Shiites and those who won’t join up or obey the draconian laws they impose on their territory, including Muslim civilians who tried to flee Mosul), or those who have no real connection to Western policy in the Middle East (journalists, apostates, gays, aid workers, and so on).

But the ultimate refutation of Sarsour’s thesis that the West’s incursions in the Middle East are in the main what is responsible for ISIS is seen in ISIS’s own magazine, Dabiq. Have a look at the article “Why we hate you & why we fight you”, which you can see on p. 30 of issue 15: here. As I wrote before:

“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 & 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.”

Other excerpts from the Dabiq piece, in order given (I’ve not included every word in these four reasons):

1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you. “There has already been for you an excellent example in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah. We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone’” (Al-Mumtahanah 4). Furthermore, just as your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief is the primary reason we fight you. . .

2. We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted, a matter that doesn’t concern you because you Christian disbelief and paganism 32 separate between religion and state, thereby granting supreme authority to your whims and desires via the legislators you vote into power. In doing so, you desire to rob Allah of His right to be obeyed and you wish to usurp that right for yourselves. . .

3. In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator. You witness the extraordinarily complex makeup of created beings, and the astonishing and inexplicably precise physical laws that govern the entire universe, but insist that they all came about through randomness and that one should be faulted, mocked, and ostracized for recognizing that the astonishing signs we witness day after day are the creation of the Wise, All-Knowing Creator and not the result of accidental occurrence.

4. We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage war against you to punish you for your transgressions against our religion. As long as your subjects continue to mock our faith, insult the prophets of Allah – including Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad  – burn the Quran, and openly vilify the laws of the Shari’ah, we will continue to retaliate, not with slogans and placards, but with bullets and knives.

The last two reasons involve the West killing Muslims, invading Muslim lands, and imprisoning Muslims. So those must be taken as reasons, too, but reread the bolded bit above.

Now if the foremost reasons why ISIS is fighting, according to its own “official” magazine, have nothing to do with Western invasions of or attacks on Muslim lands, how can Sarsour ignore the explicitly religious reasons in favor of blaming the West for it all? You know the answer: Regressive Leftists often hold the West responsible for the bad deeds of Muslims. Sarsour knows that, but unless she’s completely pig-ignorant, she must also be aware of the reasons given by Islamist terrorists like ISIS. She ignores them—on purpose.

Sarsour is a liar, and I’ve just proved it. It’s not the first time she’s lied and dissimulated, even saying once that she “may or may not” have tweeted her desire to have the genitals of Ayaan Hirsi Ali taken away. And yet she’s a hero to feminists and the Cntrl-Left. Go figure.



  1. Ullrich Fischer
    Posted July 11, 2017 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    The ctrl-left does not consider lying problematic unless someone not in their camp is doing it. It is the old “lying for Jesus” bullshit. The ends (preventing growth of anti-Muslim bigotry) justify the means. Sadly, ctrl-left lying just lends credibility to alt-right lies who have the huge weight of Fox News backup up their lies to the effect that the entire left is the “libtard” ctrl-left. Not only do the ends not justify the means, the ctrl-left lies actually increase the growth of anti-Muslim bigotry as Fox News and alt-right media gain credibility and viewers.

    • Eric Grobler
      Posted July 11, 2017 at 11:46 am | Permalink

      What is your definition “anti-Muslim bigotry”?

      If someone (like Douglas Murray) argue against mass Muslim immigration to Europe – is that anti-Muslim bigotry?

      • Posted July 12, 2017 at 8:07 am | Permalink

        “If someone (like Douglas Murray) argue against mass Muslim immigration to Europe – is that anti-Muslim bigotry?”

        On its face, no. Arguing that unlimited immigration may eventually become destabilizing to Western Europe is not bigotry. It could be used as cover for bigotry, but based on my exposure to Murray, I don’t see him as a bigot. At worst, he is simply wrong in his assessment that the detriments of unlimited immigration outweigh the benefits.

        • Eric Grobler
          Posted July 12, 2017 at 9:32 am | Permalink

          I agree with you, but I fear many on the left do not.

  2. Kevin
    Posted July 11, 2017 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    Ah, the lengths to which Sarsour will go to make sure she gets to paradise.

    Unfortunately she is not alone. Christian Americans also hate to criticize ISIS (or make up reasons for their existence) because they know derailing one faith is not far from derailing their own.

    Sarsour is terrified that if ISIS is part of Islam, it ruins her precious childhood dream of Allah. What a broken life to have to fabricate so much of a reality that is not real.

    • BJ
      Posted July 11, 2017 at 10:43 am | Permalink

      “Christian Americans also hate to criticize ISIS (or make up reasons for their existence) because they know derailing one faith is not far from derailing their own.”

      I have never seen this phenomenon on display. Could you provide examples?

      • Kevin
        Posted July 11, 2017 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

        It’s not clear whether Obama is a Christian, but he rarely, if ever, blamed ISIS on Islamic faith.

        I am referring mostly to what Maajid Nawaz claims is the Voldemort Effect. Americans have a preference to not want to hurt the feelings of the faithful. Christians have the additional discomfort of knowing that when they criticize other faiths, they may not be able to escape criticism of their own faith, which can lead people to do irrational things.

        • BJ
          Posted July 11, 2017 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

          The only example you provided is Obama, but he was pandering to liberals, not Christians. The majority of the Christians are on the right and are more than happy to criticize Islam and ISIS. As I said to Heather below, not criticizing Islam or not attributing ISIS to Islam (which is a move of the goalposts, as you originally said they are unwilling to criticize ISIS, rather than unwilling to tie that criticism to Islam) is a liberal thing, not a Christian thing.

          • Posted July 11, 2017 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

            “The majority of the Christians are on the right…”

            This is true for (most) evangelical churches and the Mormons. All the rest favor Democrats, with some churches well over 90% for Dems.


            • Craw
              Posted July 11, 2017 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

              The religious left is little discussed

              • Diane G.
                Posted July 12, 2017 at 1:41 am | Permalink

                Probably because they create so few problems.

              • BJ
                Posted July 12, 2017 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

                Or, as with the same point I was making before, the problems they create are more due to their “liberalism” and the Christianity is just incidental (I put “liberalism” in quotes because what I really mean is their far-leftism. A lot of Christians on the left are in the modern day social justice crowd).

            • BJ
              Posted July 12, 2017 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

              Well, this doesn’t tell me if the majority of Christians as a whole are actually found on the left as opposed to right. But, unless we can find a poll that isn’t breaking things down by denomination, it seems like the biggest groups skew to the right.

    • Eric Grobler
      Posted July 11, 2017 at 11:31 am | Permalink

      “Christian Americans also hate to criticize ISIS”

      Your claim does not make sense to me.
      Perhaps Christians are sensitive to criticism of religion in general.
      However I think it is the left that protects Islam against scrutiny rather than Christians.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted July 11, 2017 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

        Conservative Christians criticize DAESH, but liberal ones insist it’s a “religion of peace” and that “terrorists aren’t real Muslims”.

        • BJ
          Posted July 11, 2017 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

          That’s much more a liberal problem than a Christian problem, wouldn’t you agree? The Christianity is just incidental.

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted July 12, 2017 at 8:15 am | Permalink

            I don’t really know. It’s sometimes hard to tell the difference from my end of the world since nearly everyone is Christian in the US anyway. Liberal Muslims often vote for the GOP, and liberal Jews don’t often make mistakes about Islam.

            • BJ
              Posted July 12, 2017 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

              About 70% of the US identifies as Christian in some way, and I guess that includes all those who don’t practice but still consider themselves such. I see where you’re coming from, though. I guess my ultimate point was that I’ve never seen someone try to defend Islam and/or dismiss or blame outside factors (like the West) for ISIS. I’ve only seen that come from the far left. This is what leads me to believe that it’s a left thing, not a Christian thing.

      • Posted July 11, 2017 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

        …and I would say christians would secretly be happy to take down Islam, for they worship the only true god and it’s not Allah, for that reason alone.
        Perhaps they empathise with the dislike of gays and the like and ISIS bid to rid the world of them.
        We have though seen cracks on this take in the religious hierarchy with the current popular Francis and the CC wanting to share the planet with all faiths…
        Live and let live, yeah right! Just keep your distance, mind you.
        Basically christians don’t care enough as long as ISIS isn’t banging on their door and better still let the mentally constipated left/right bash each other while retaining religious world order.IMHO.

        • BJ
          Posted July 11, 2017 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

          “Perhaps they empathise with the dislike of gays and the like and ISIS bid to rid the world of them.
          We have though seen cracks on this take in the religious hierarchy with the current popular Francis and the CC wanting to share the planet with all faiths…”

          We’ve sen the cracks in the general population, at least in the US (which is the location of the Christians we’re discussing). Majorities of the largest denominations now support gay marriage:

  3. Jacob
    Posted July 11, 2017 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    Not to mention her discussion of the time line of ISIS is off… From Wikipedia: “ISIL originated as Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999.”

    So no, ISIS as it stands today was not present 15, 10, or 7 years ago, but that’s irrelevant. The formation of the group took different names, but the groups and ideology have been around a long time.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted July 11, 2017 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

      Yes, there have always been conservative imams. The current strain of Wahhabism came from the 18th century imam from which Wahhabism gets its name. He made a deal with the House of Saud. Wahhabism spread via the sponsorship of the Saud dynasty. Oil money made them rich, and the rest is history.

  4. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted July 11, 2017 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    ISIS may have been aggravated by Bush’s war, but didn’t start with it, and Muslims have been trying to conquer other lands for centuries, even if not using terrorist tactics.

    Since ISIS isn’t really rational, its not beyond the pale that anger at the West (in combo with jihadist beliefs) could be taken out on other Muslims who are seen as compromised.

    • jay
      Posted July 11, 2017 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

      “Since ISIS isn’t really rational..”

      I wouldn’t say that. They are coldly criminally rational (not unlike Stalin or Mao)

  5. nicky
    Posted July 11, 2017 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    I think Linda Sarsour is just practicing Dawa. Dawa allows for many different tactics.
    And yes, the 2003 invasion of Iraq made DAESH/ISIL powerful, because they got the bulk of Saddam’s men, experienced in tactics and torture….

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted July 11, 2017 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

      Yes. The de-Ba’athification of Iraq was a stupid idea, which came from a US functionary, and DAESH got Saddam’s people. But then PM Al-Maliki treated all Sunnis like $hit and they turned to DAESH, not realizing how bad they were until it was too late.

      (I know you already know this Nicky – I’m just adding to what you said.)

      • Posted July 11, 2017 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

        I am afraid that the high proportion of Sunnis turning to ISIS shows that al-Maliki had some right.

        The de-Ba’athification of Iraq reminds me of the decommunization of my country after 1989. Then, thousands of policemen were laid off as too biased ideologically or too incompetent to serve in the security apparatus of a democratic country. Many of them ended up in the various gangs that almost ruled the country for some period. There was a wide discussion on the topic. Some said that the decommunization of police had been a huge mistake, leaving all those poor men with no choice but to become career criminals. Others, including me, objected that if someone has a criminal mindset, it is better to have him in a gang than in the police; and if those men went to the gangs straight from the police jobs, this only shows that their sacking was long overdue.

        The country eventually outgrew that difficult period. Indeed, our problem was minor compared with that of Iraq, because it did not include religion.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted July 12, 2017 at 8:20 am | Permalink

          I think it’s religion that makes Iraq different. The police was a position of power which under communist rule attracted a certain type of person. In Iraq, people like doctors, pharmacists, and teachers joined the Ba’ath Party because they had to in order to get a job.

          • Posted July 12, 2017 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

            “In Iraq, people like doctors, pharmacists, and teachers joined the Ba’ath Party because they had to in order to get a job.”

            It was the same with the Communist Party of Bulgaria! For most professions, membership in the Party was not required by law but here and there, the bosses required it for admission or promotion. In a few sensitive fields, such as the police and the army, membership was legally required. As a result, the Party membership swell to the crazy 1,000,000 in a country of less than 8,000,000. After 1989, most members quietly left – when the Communist party changed its name to Socialist party, they didn’t resume their registration.

            As freshmen, we had a funny incident. We were all members of the Young Communist League, starting with 8th or even late 7th grade. We, even those of us who were against communism, had never considered not applying. So we were very surprised when, at the university, a fellow student refused to pay membership fee in the League, saying he was not a member. We looked with awe at the dissident and started questioning him how he has endured the pressure and what life is like for a non-member. It turned out that he had been at a military academy, where the Young Communist League was not enough, and he was already a Party member. What a disappointment!

            • Heather Hastie
              Posted July 12, 2017 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

              Ha ha! 😀

      • Posted July 12, 2017 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

        This. US policy also failed on this account, because the US govt had enough leverage (in aid to Iraq) to get better treatment for Sunni populations. In fact, the earlier “surge” of US troop numbers in Iraq had what success it had, mostly not because of sheer numbers, but because it coincided with an American policy of working closely with certain Sunni militias, against Al Qaeda. If Al-Maliki didn’t like Sunni militias roaming about, as I’m sure he didn’t, we could have extracted better treatment of Sunnis as a condition for ending direct support.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted July 12, 2017 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

          Good point.

    • Posted July 11, 2017 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

      The Iraq invasion was a mistake. But once it was made… what would you suggest to do with Saddam’s torture experts? Let them keep their jobs?

  6. Posted July 11, 2017 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    The *better* way to make the claim – though she doesn’t seem to realize it – is to point out, correctly, that military and colonial adventures increase *support* for terrorists and others.

    • Paul S
      Posted July 11, 2017 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

      …and others. Does that include the Barbary pirates? \sarcasm

      Time to stop blaming others for their actions. I’d think in a religion as patriarchal as Islam they’d be eager to man up, as it were.

      • Posted July 12, 2017 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

        “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a very rooted piece of human psychology, for better or for worse.

  7. Randy schenck
    Posted July 11, 2017 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    My limited education on the subject tells me that ISIS came directly out of Al Qaeda in Iraq and soon after the leader, Zarqawi was eliminated. Frontline has done documentaries on this subject and connected all the dots. They are a more radical form of Islamic Terrorist and do things that even Al Qaeda finds repulsive. Fortunately this ISIS group is losing one of it’s prime objectives and that is to establish their own land. There are a lot of Muslims killing ISIS so what does she say about that?

  8. Raghu Mani
    Posted July 11, 2017 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    What Sarsour does not seem to get is that an ISIS-type state has existed for most of the past century and an ISIS-type philosophy has been around for over 250 years. I’m referring, of course, to Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism. There is not much difference between Saudi Arabia and ISIS when it comes to governance. Both have the same puritanical and literalist interpretation of Islamic law. Of course Saudi Arabia isn’t aggressively expansionist like ISIS nor does it support terrorism. It prefers to use its oil money to spread its version of Islam around the world rather than waging war.

    It is probably true that America’s misadventures in the Middle East have served to increase support for extreme movements in Islam but the philosophies have been there for a long time. As Maajid Nawaz says turning someone into an Islamist or Jihadist requires both an ideological narrative as well as a political grievance. So long as this extreme ideology exists, violent incarnations of it will pop of from time to time. The original Saudi state, founded by Muhammad bin Saud and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, was in some ways, very ISIS-like in that they practiced the same puritanical brand of Islam, declared anyone who disagreed with them non-Muslim. Shiites were targeted, with thousands being killed and many holy places destroyed. The state was short lived, being put to an end by the Ottoman Empire.

    Of course, Sarsour thinks that Maajid is some kind of anti-Muslim bigot but his opinion is hardly unique. Please check out the following YouTube video of a talk by Muhammad al Yaqoubi – who is the former Imam of the Grand Umayyad Mosque in Damascus and one of the most influential Muslim clerics in the world.

    He essentially says the same things that the people at Quilliam are saying regarding the causes of extremism and terrorism.

    – RM

    • Posted July 11, 2017 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

      “Of course Saudi Arabia isn’t aggressively expansionist like ISIS nor does it support terrorism.”

      Wait. What? Saudi Arabia doesn’t support terrorism?

      You’d be hard pressed, I think, to defend this. Your only option is to claim that the Saudi government does not admit that Saudis support terrorism.

      • Raghu Mani
        Posted July 11, 2017 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

        My bad. Let me clarify. The Saudi government does not support terrorism and is part of the war on terror but Saudi citizens have been funding terrorist outfits (including ISIS) for quite some time.

        – RM

  9. somer
    Posted July 11, 2017 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    Maybe a bit mischievous but it is definitely amusing and on the mark about Linda Sarsour – and nothing libellous.
    From Hashim Almadani “Linda Sarsour, You are Typical” [He means typical of the Muslim Brotherhood]

  10. Fernando Peregrin
    Posted July 12, 2017 at 1:45 am | Permalink

    Muslims have for more than 500 years without adding a single comma to the knowledge of humanity and the envy and hatred of the West for it is, to a large extent the root of all the evils of Muslim societies. To combat this enormous inferiority complex, they resort to Islamophobia and adopt a complex of moral superiority that justifies them all of their desires to destroy our Western culture, which has given humanity such valuable things as modern science, the great musical repertoire of Its high culture and liberal democracy

  11. Posted July 12, 2017 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

    I wouldn’t believe ISIS’s statements about its reasons for murder and terrorism, any more than I would believe Linda Sarsour’s. Much less, in fact. In addition to endorsing murder and terrorism, I’m pretty sure their ideology gives them blanket permission to lie to you about their war effort. Even if they knew why they hate you – and most don’t – they probably wouldn’t tell you.

  12. Posted July 13, 2017 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    Reblogged this on The Logical Place.

  13. Richard Sanderson
    Posted July 14, 2017 at 5:51 am | Permalink

    To momentarily use a regressive left buzzword to call out Sarsour’s behaviour – I believe she uses “Zionist” as a “dog-whistle”. We all know she what she actually means.

    Also, shame on the ACLU for writing up a glowing article on her. Some fool suggested on t****er that because the ACLU had also defended people like Milo, and others on the “alt-right”, we had no business complaining about the ACLU saying #WeStandWithLinda.

    Two small differences.

    1) The ACLU did not produce support hashtags for the members of the alt-right, it just stated they support free speech in general. As it should.
    2) The ACLU did not write praiseworthy articles championing those members of the alt-right, as it did with Sarsour.

    So you can keep that BS excuse.

%d bloggers like this: