News Ticker >
[ September 25, 2017 ]

My Story

[ September 25, 2017 ]

Islamic State Threatens Prince Henry, Promises to Send Him to “Hellfire”

[ September 25, 2017 ]

London Mayor Sadiq Khan Compares Donald Trump to Islamic State

[ September 25, 2017 ]

Robert Spencer: Why Is the 9/11 Museum Bringing in Dishonest Islamic Apologist Haroon Moghul to...

[ September 25, 2017 ]

Pope welcomes leader of Muslim group tied to financing of jihad terror to Vatican

[ September 25, 2017 ]

Muslim IT worker at center of House scandal accused of abusing three Muslim women

[ September 25, 2017 ]

Has Germany Never Learned?

[ September 25, 2017 ]

Minnesota: Authorities claim motive of Muslim who stabbed people while screaming “Allahu akbar” is unclear

[ September 25, 2017 ]

Islamic Contract Marriages: When Sheikhs Marry, Rape and Divorce Child Brides, All in One Week

[ September 25, 2017 ]

Rich Higgins, On Why He Was Fired From the White House

Geller and Spencer in Breitbart: “In Cathy Young’s World, Everybody Surrenders”


In an extraordinarily lengthy tirade, Cathy Young attacks Robert Spencer and me with lies, libel and smear. Nothing new, I know. But clearly she intended this to be the go-to dossier for every perverted journalist who seeks to impose the sharia restrictions on free speech. But one has to question who fed her this bile and whose side is she on. It is one of the most dishonest pieces of trash I’ve seen published, and let me say that’s no small thing as the field is so very crowded.

Julius Streicher in the beastly Der Stürmer.


In Cathy Young’s World, Everybody Surrenders,” By Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, Breitbart, May 11, 2015
The teaser to Cathy Young’s vicious and dishonest exercise in character assassination in The Daily Beast says: “Pam Geller and Robert Spencer are being viewed as free speech champions for their ‘Draw Muhammad’ contest, which turned tragic in Dallas last week. But once a moderate Muslim begins speaking, they quickly turn into what they hate.”

Leaving aside whether or not standing for the freedom of speech against violent intimidation is really “hate” at all, what exactly does Young think we turn into when we see moderate Muslims? People who murder Muhammad cartoonists? Fascist foes of free speech? She follows up this curious claim that we “quickly turn into what [we] hate” by retailing the story of how we both supposedly led a “smear campaign” against Zuhdi Jasser in 2011, yet he “graciously” defended our right to free speech in the wake of the jihad attack on our Muhammad cartoon event.

In Young’s crude black hat/white hat scenario, we’re the vicious flamethrowers smearing a moderate Muslim out of “hate,” while Jasser graciously brushes aside the smears and defends us nonetheless. Young claims that we think Jasser is a “a faux Muslim” or “a camouflaged extremist practicing taqiyya. She doesn’t see fit to mention that in February 2014, long after this supposed “smear campaign,” Robert Spencer defended Jasser against an actual smear campaign from the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), calling him “a strong voice against Hamas-linked CAIR and other malignant Islamic supremacist forces.”

Young claims that this “sordid episode” shows that we are “no heroes for free speech.” Yet she offers no examples of how we, say, fiendishly tried to deny Jasser’s freedom of speech, or compel publications to censor him. The spirited and substantive disagreement we had with him was not a denial of free speech, but an example of it. For Cathy Young to present it as if it showed that we were somehow against free speech demonstrates that she has no idea what free speech really is.

That’s the way Young’s entire piece goes. If anyone knows smear campaigns, it is she. Her modus operandi is to offer a tendentious, incomplete, misleading version of events, designed to portray us as villainous and hateful as possible, while conveniently omitting everything that doesn’t fit her narrative, with apparent insouciance about how dishonest, false, and even defamatory the resulting picture may be.

How dishonest is Cathy Young? She claims that Pamela Geller has a “lengthy record of peddling anti-Muslim hysteria, targeting Muslims’ First Amendment right to worship, smearing innocent people as jihadists, and even excusing the slaughter of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia.” Notice that only two of those four charges has a link to substantiate it; Young doesn’t – and can’t — offer any examples of Geller “peddling anti-Muslim hysteria” or “smearing innocent people as jihadists.” As for the claim that Geller targets Muslims’ right to worship, Young links to a Geller column about a New Jersey city that had rejected a proposed mosque over zoning issues; after a lawsuit, the city paid the mosque leaders damages and the mosque was built elsewhere. Nowhere in her piece does Geller call for restrictions on Muslims’ freedom of worship or say that mosques in general should not be built; Geller was primarily concerned with the Justice Department and mosque leaders strong-arming the city over its legitimate zoning concerns. But Young doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a good smear.

Even worse is Young’s link to Geller supposedly “excusing the slaughter of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia.” For that, Young links not to Geller actually excusing anyone’s slaughter, but to Young’s fellow smear merchant, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs. Johnson libelously claims that Serbian war criminal Ratko Mladic “slaughtered Muslims, and that makes him an ally of Geller, Robert Spencer, and the rest of their thuggish crowd.” His evidence for this? Geller saying that “there are no heroes in the Bosnian conflict, but the Muslim atrocities were far worse.” Does that sound like someone cheering on the slaughter of Muslims, or even excusing it? Any honest reader would have to acknowledge that Geller said that there were “no heroes” in the conflict and that both sides had committed “atrocities.” But we’re not dealing with honest readers here; we’re dealing with Charles Johnson and Cathy Young.

Young excoriates Robert Spencer for calling Islamic reform “quixotic” and “virtually inconceivable,” while not mentioning that this was in discussion with a moderate Muslim, Thomas Haidon, who said: “Spencer has rightly argued that until a reformist movement tables coherent and irrefutable evidence that the version of Islam envisioned by reformists is the ‘correct Islam’, then the movement will never have mass appeal in the Ummah.” How inconvenient for Young: a moderate Muslim agreeing with Robert Spencer on what she is trying to present as Spencer’s hostility to moderates and hatefulness regarding Islam!

Spencer, says Young, “sweepingly describes the faith of ‘millions’ of Muslim immigrants in the West as ‘absolutely incompatible with Western society.’” In the video to which she links, Spencer is speaking about not about Muslims but about Islamic law, which mandates stoning of adulterers, the amputation of thieves’ hands, the killing of gays and those who leave Islam, the beating of disobedient women, and more – as evidenced by the fact that all these practices and more are seen in Sharia states today, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Does this mean that each and every Muslim immigrant to the West thinks that these practices should be brought West? No – and Spencer never says otherwise. But here again, Young doesn’t let the facts get in the way of her smear.

Young continues: “When America’s first Muslim congressman Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) chose to use a Quran in his swearing-in ceremony, Spencer flatly stated that ‘no American official should be taking an oath on the Qur’an.’” Millions of Americans agreed – not least because of those passages of the Qur’an that call for warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims. But Young doesn’t bother to try to refute Spencer’s arguments; for her it is enough to show that Spencer has departed from politically acceptable opinion, to signal to her Daily Beast groupthinkers that he is not to be believed. She does this again when noting that Spencer’s “2005 best-seller, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), has such chapter titles as ‘Islamic Law: Lie, Steal and Kill.’” Does Young prove that Islamic law does not, under certain circumstances, allow for lying, stealing, and killing? No. She doesn’t even try. She knows her Daily Beast readers will assume that it doesn’t, and hate Spencer for daring to say otherwise.

Showing that she will stoop to any low to defame us, Young even links to a hate site devoted solely to collecting libels and falsehoods about Robert Spencer, and claims that Spencer’s “account of Islamic history is blatantly one-sided. Thus, he tries to rebut the ‘PC myth’ that Jews in the Middle Ages fared better under Islamic rule than in Christian Europe by quoting from a 13th Century papal bull that affirmed the rights accorded to Jews—but fails to mention the many expulsions of Jewish communities from European countries and glosses over crusader massacres of Jews.” In reality, Spencer devotes several pages of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades to the Crusaders’ massacres of Jews in Eastern Europe (“Count Emicho of Leiningen and his followers advanced through the Rhineland, killing and plundering Jews in five German cities: Speyer, Worms, Mainz, Trier, and Cologne”) and several more to the Crusaders’ burning of a synagogue full of Jews in Jerusalem, which he calls “this atrocity, this outrage.” That’s “glossing over” in Cathy Young’s book.

And did Jews in the Middle Ages fare better under Islamic rule than in Christian Europe”? Young thinks that Spencer’s denying this is evidence that he is hateful. Yet the philosopher Maimonides, a Jew who lived for a time in Muslim Spain and then fled that supposedly tolerant and pluralistic land, remarked, “You know, my brethren, that on account of our sins God has cast us into the midst of this people, the nation of Ishmael, who persecute us severely, and who devise ways to harm us and to debase us….No nation has ever done more harm to Israel. None has matched it in debasing and humiliating us. None has been able to reduce us as they have….We have borne their imposed degradation, their lies, and absurdities, which are beyond human power to bear.”

No doubt Maimonides would have been the target of Cathy Young’s poison pen had he had the misfortune of being her contemporary.

Young claims: “When Spencer writes about moderate Muslims, it is invariably to disparage them as deluded, insincere, or irrelevant.” She left out endangered, as in the Moroccan cleric Ahmed Assid, who condemned violence in Islam’s name and about whom Spencer wrote: “So why isn’t Ahmed Assid celebrated as a hero, instead of fearing for his life?” Young doesn’t quote this because the specter of Spencer saying a moderate Muslim should be celebrated as a hero wouldn’t fit her demonization of him as supposedly denigrating all moderates.

“His targets,” Young said, “include reformist Muslims who are strongly critical of radical Islamism and have themselves been accused of being Islamophobic shills: Jasser, self-styled ‘Muslim refusenik’ Irshad Manji, Sufi Muslim convert Stephen Schwartz.” Once again, Young’s links are quite far from how she represents them. The one about Manji discusses her characterizations of certain aspects of Islamic history; it doesn’t say anything about her opposition to “radical Islamism.” And regarding Schwartz, Spencer wrote: “I was saddened to read Mr. Schwartz’s letter, particularly its heading, since I have never attacked him in any way. I have merely asked questions about his recommendations for a reconfiguration of Islam so as to make it no longer a refuge and motivating force for international terrorists. Had Mr. Schwartz answered these questions honestly, fully, and civilly, we might have been on the way to a fruitful dialogue that could have helped accomplish what he professes to work for: ‘convincing Muslims of the need for moderation.’”

Ah, but Cathy Young wants her readers to believe that Spencer has no interest in Muslim reformers “convincing Muslims of the need for moderation,” and so she doesn’t include that quote.

Young then bizarrely excoriates Spencer for failing to praise a suicide bombing, saying his “targets” also “include Kurdish fighters battling the Islamic State: last October, a Spencer post on his site, JihadWatch, reported a Kurdish woman’s suicide bomb attack on ISIS troops in a besieged town under the jeering headline, ‘Kurdish Muslima carries out moderate jihad/martyrdom suicide attack against the Islamic State,’ and sneered at the idea that “the foes of the Islamic State are all moderate.” Clearly the foes of the Islamic State are indeed not all moderate, and it is hard to see how she can justify suicide bombing in any context, but for Cathy Young, demonizing Spencer and Geller is paramount; all other considerations are secondary, apparently even including basic questions of morality and ethics.

Stooping even lower, and running out of ammo on Spencer himself, Young takes up a nine-year-old post by a former Jihad Watch writer: “Spencer ostensibly disavows bigotry; yet a 2006 JihadWatch post,—written by the site’s co-administrator Hugh Fitzgerald but posted by Spencer himself—suggests that the most peaceful, non-violent, and even secularized Muslims are still a danger to the West as long as they have not explicitly renounced Islam, because either they or their children may revert to a more militant form of the faith.” This is a tendentious misstatement of what Fitzgerald actually wrote – as evidenced by the fact that she does not quote him: she can’t produce an actual damning quote. In any case, there are numerous examples of secularized Muslims becoming devout and militant. Coming so soon after the specter of Nadir Soofi trying to commit mass murder at our cartoon contest, to the professed shock and grief of his father, Young’s taking issue with Fitzgerald’s piece is nothing short of grotesque.

“Both Spencer and Geller,” Young charges, “relentlessly hype the Muslim peril in the U.S. Every violent crime by a Muslim becomes a one-person jihad, from a mentally ill Bosnian teen’s shooting spree at a Salt Lake City shopping mall to a drug addict’s meth-fueled rampage assaulting customers and staff at a Seaside, California Walmart.” With jihad groups calling on Muslims to commit “lone wolf” attacks in the West, Young would need to produce evidence that these cases had nothing to do with Islam. She does not, and doesn’t mention that Salt Lake City mall shooter Sulejman Talovic “was described as a religious Muslim, attending mosque on Fridays and praying outside of mosque as well”; “wore a necklace with a miniature Koran at the time of the shooting,” and “told his ‘girlfriend’ the night before that ‘tomorrow will be the happiest day of my life…’ (a likely reference to martyrdom).” Again, why let the facts get in the way of a good smear?

Young then expatiates on a post Geller deleted from her website. The deletion of material found to be inaccurate, however, is standard practice on the Internet, and a sign of Geller’s commitment to accuracy. Until Young begins to denounce the New York Times for stories it has taken down, her reference to a story Geller deleted is simply contemptible. Young appears to want her readers to believe that “vehicular jihad” is a figment of the “Islamophobic” imagination. She doesn’t tell them that in September 2014, the Islamic State told Muslims in the West: “If you are not able to find an IED or a bullet, then single out the disbelieving American, Frenchman, or any of their allies. Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car…” And even before that, this was an element of the jihadist arsenal.

Young then adds an outright lie: “In 2011, Geller agreed to settle a defamation suit by removing from her site several posts suggesting—with no evidence—that Columbus, Ohio attorney Omar Tarazi had ties to the terrorist group Hamas.” In her windy and poorly edited piece, she returns to this many paragraphs later, making the same false claims and declaring: “Geller herself has a rather strained relationship with the truth.” In reality, Geller won this case. Tarazi had sued for $10 million; he got nothing. Geller had several posts that made the same claim. She agreed to remove only two of many, as a courtesy; the agreement did not require her not to repost the same substance subsequently, and it was already up on other posts. There was nothing false about Geller’s claims regarding Tarazi: she had said that he had ties to CAIR, which has demonstrable ties to Hamas, and this was all established during the litigation.

Young continues her tissue of false and misleading statements: “Homicidal (and suicidal) non-Muslims can be recruited to the cause as well. In 2007, Geller harped obsessively on the notion that Virginia Tech mass shooter Seung-Hui Cho, a Korean national and a Christian, was a secret jihadi because of the mysterious ‘Ismail Ax’ tattoo on his arm.” No one has ever explained what the “Ismail Ax” tattoo was all about. Cathy Young, however, is sure it has nothing to do with jihad. How does she know? Because she hates Pamela Geller.

“Two years earlier,” Young tells us, “Spencer was one of the bloggers flogging the theory that Joel Hinrichs, a University of Oklahoma engineering student who killed himself by detonating a homemade bomb in his backpack near the campus football stadium during a game, was a Muslim convert and had planned a suicide bombing inside the stadium. This speculation was based on these incredibly incriminating clues: Hinrichs had recently grown a beard, had lived a few blocks from a mosque, and had a Pakistani roommate.” Once again, the links tell the tale: Spencer never mentioned his beard, and Young doesn’t bother mentioning that “investigators say they also found ‘Islamic jihad’ material in Hinrichs’ apartment when they searched it. Hinrichs, it turns out, attended a mosque near his university-owned apartment — the same one attended by Zacharias Moussaoui, the only person charged in connection with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”

Young isn’t finished lying and distorting. She then turns to our supposed “Muslims-under-the-bed paranoia” which “drives distortion-riddled reports about the alleged encroachment of ‘sharia law’ in America—which can mean nothing more than utterly innocuous accommodations for practicing Muslims such as ritual foot baths on university campuses and at airports.” Can Cathy Young provide examples of public funding being used for holy water fonts or Torah scrolls on university campuses and at airports? Can she explain why she has no problem with public funds being used for this accommodation of Islam when similar accommodation would never be offered for Judaism or Christianity?

Young’s next Geller atrocity is a real stretch, even for her:

Take the “sharia courtroom” scandal in 2012, in which a Muslim judge in Pennsylvania was said to have let a Muslim immigrant off the hook for assaulting an atheist who had marched in a local Halloween parade dressed as “Zombie Mohammed.” The only grain of truth in this story was that the judge, Mark W. Martin, had quite inappropriately lectured the victim for abusing his First Amendment rights before dismissing the harassment charge for lack of evidence. But Martin, a Republican and an Iraq war veteran, was (as he confirmed to the media) a churchgoing Lutheran; the confusion was based on a misheard line in the audio of the court session.

Undeterred, Geller continued to insist that Martin was a “sharia judge” who had declared himself a Muslim in the court hearing and was probably lying about it in the aftermath—because, of course, Muslims lie.

Follow the link to Geller’s piece on this. Martin actually said during the hearing, “I’m a Muslim.” Later he denied being a Muslim, and Geller wrote: “He now denies that he is a Muslim, but that’s what he said. Ultimately, it is irrelevant if the judge is or isn’t a Muslim.  What is germane is his sharia ruling, which is worse if he’s not a Muslim.” Young represents this as Geller insisting he was a Muslim and lying about not being one. And she even admits that Martin was wrong to lecture the victim for violating Sharia, but still skewers Geller for saying the same thing. Does Cathy Young, then, have no decency whatsoever?

Young then criticizes us for daring to criticize Bernard Lewis and journalist Michael Totten, without bothering to explain why either’s work should be off-limits to criticism. For a professed supporter of free speech, Young has an ugly and authoritarian tendency to regard substantive disagreement with those whom she favors as evidence of some moral defect. Yet they are richly deserving of criticism and disagreement. She quotes Totten, for example, sneering: “I got on the hit list of Pamela Geller and her flock of honking geese when, while reporting from Bosnia and Kosovo, I wrote about Serbian ethnic cleansing and war crimes. She insists not only that Serbian ethnic cleansing didn’t occur—never mind that I know some of the victims and visited some of the ethnically cleansed areas in person—but also that ‘every major US paper in 1999’ supposedly ‘debunked’ the ethnic cleansing that every knowledgeable and serious person knows happened. The woman lives in an alternate universe.” It is Totten, however, whose universe is off-kilter: the Geller post to which Young links makes it abundantly clear that at issue was not whether there were people killed and areas cleared out; at issue was whether or not the term “ethnic cleansing” was justified. So for Totten to declare that he had spoken to victims was simply off the point.

“Totten’s run-in with Geller,” says Young, “highlights another troubling aspect of her views: a propensity for Bosnian Muslim genocide denial and for valorizing Serbian mass murderers as leaders of anti-jihadist resistance. (‘The Serbs dared to fight. That’s what this is all about,’ she wrote in a 2011 post.)” In any conflict, one chooses sides. We believe Clinton chose the wrong side in the Balkans in the 1990s. We were right. Look at Sarajevo: once a dynamic and pluralistic city, it has now been ethnically cleansed of non-Muslims. Cathy Young won’t tell you that. As for the scurrilous charge of genocide denial, at issue here again is whether or not the term “genocide” is justified, not whether or not Muslims were killed or Serbian mass murderers are heroes. There is legitimate disagreement on this question. In “Srebrenica as Genocide? The Krstić Decision and the Language of the Unspeakable,” published in the Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal, Vol. VIII in 2005, Katherine G. Southwick writes:

In August 2001, a trial chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) handed down the tribunal’s first genocide conviction. In this landmark case, Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, the trial chamber determined that the 1995 Srebrenica massacres—in which Bosnian Serb forces executed 7,000-8,000 Bosnian Muslim men—constituted genocide. This Note acknowledges the need for a dramatic expression of moral outrage at the most terrible massacre in Europe since the Second World War. However, this Note also challenges the genocide finding. By excluding consideration of the perpetrators’ motives for killing the men, such as seeking to eliminate a military threat, the Krstić chamber’s method for finding specific intent to destroy the Bosnian Muslims, in whole or in part, was incomplete. The chamber also loosely construed other terms in the genocide definition, untenably broadening the meaning and application of the crime. The chamber’s interpretation of genocide in turn has problematic implications for the tribunal, enforcement of international humanitarian law, and historical accuracy. Thus highlighting instances where inquiry into motives may be relevant to genocide determinations, this Note ultimately argues for preserving distinctions between genocide and crimes against humanity, while simultaneously expanding the legal obligation to act to mass crimes that lack proof of genocidal intent.

If Geller is guilty of “genocide denial,” so also is the Yale Human Rights & Development Law Journal. In reality, neither are. The raising of legitimate questions does not constitute either the denial or the excusing of the evils that Serbian forces actually perpetrated.

Intent on using every professional character assassin’s trick in the book, Young then throws in guilt by association, claiming that Srdja Trifkovic is one of Spencer’s “closest associates” and that Trifkovic is “not only a denier of Serbian war crimes but a former advisor to one of the accused perpetrators, Bosnian Serb politician Radovan Karadzic.”

In reality, Spencer has met Trifkovic in person only once. They are not associates, close or otherwise. They do not work together and never have. Ten years ago they were both featured in a documentary that neither of them produced; they did not meet on the set. This is not to say that Spencer accepts Young’s claims about Trifkovic – they are almost certainly as false as the rest of her claims – but only yet again to point out her cavalier disregard for accuracy. The claim that Spencer and Trifkovic are close and that therefore Spencer must share the thirst for genocide that Trifkovic supposedly harbors is the work of an earlier libel merchant whom Young invokes: “Kejda Germani, the Kosovar émigré writer who documented the Spencer/Trifkovic connection five years ago.”

Young can’t even get basic facts right: her fellow smear artist’s surname is actually Gjermani; Spencer documented the falsity of her claims years ago, but Young doesn’t deign to take notice.

After all these lies, all these distortions, all these half-truths, all these libels, Young, covered in mud and slime, piously intones: “treating Islam as a monolith, denying the possibility of reform, and demonizing Muslims en masse is not the answer.” Where either of us ever have done any of those things, she doesn’t say, and cannot say, for she is lying about us again. She claims: “Spencer has argued that Islamic reform has no theological foundation, but he ignores the work of such 20th Century thinkers as Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, who made the case for the abrogation of the Quran’s later, harsher texts by the earlier, more peaceful ones (rather than vice versa).”

Young is lying yet again: Spencer does not ignore Taha’s work at all. Last year, he wrote: “The Sudanese government executed Mahmoud Mohammed Taha for heresy after he said that the Qur’an’s Meccan suras, which are more peaceful, should supersede the Medinan suras, which are more violent.” In 2006, he published a piece by moderate Muslim Thomas Haidon, “Some reflections on the death of Mohammed Taha.” The one who is ignoring important facts is Young: she doesn’t mention that Taha was executed as a heretic for his ideas about Islam – a stark illustration that, as Spencer has pointed out (to Young’s disgust), reform will not be easy.

However dishonest and mendacious, Cathy Young’s piece is exhaustively researched. She clearly spent a great deal of time on it. Ponder for a moment the specter of a journalist spending dozens of hours researching and writing, and the Daily Beast publishing, a piece libeling two people who were just targeted by jihadist assassins. Cathy Young could have spent all that time researching and writing a piece about the would-be jihad mass murderers, Ibrahim Simpson and Nadir Soofi, laying bare for Daily Beast readers their guiding ideology, investigating to what extent their jihadi beliefs were taught in their mosque, and more.

Instead, this. Young’s protestations about supporting free speech are belied by her avidity to defame us; clearly she, and the Daily Beast, looked at the shooting at our event and decided that the real enemy was not Ibrahim Simpson and Nadir Soofi and their murderous ilk, but Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and their “flock of honking geese.” They would rather see more people like Ibrahim Simpson and Nadir Soofi than like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. And so they will.

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter here. Like her on Facebook here. Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His next book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS, will be available August 24. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Pamela Geller's shocking new book, "FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA" is now available on Amazon.
It's Geller's tell all, her story - and it's every story.
It's what happens when you stand for freedom today.
The story of being hunted in America. Get it, read it, share it. It's mindblowing. Buy it. Now. Here.
  • Walter Sieruk

    As for all those Muhammad cartoons at that A.F.D.I. contest. In reality it was not the cartoons, Pamela Geller or the A.F.D.I.event that cause the jihad shooting. It was Islam and those two Muslims who came with firearms with murderous intentions that are in the wrong. Those two Muslims could have staged a peaceful protest to the cartoon event. Instead they chose the violence of terrorism as the way to handle things. They are responsible for their own actions Their choice of jihad violence says something about them. Likewise, their jihad violence also says something about Islam.

    • dfw63

      I was surprised that there wasn’t a single protester there.
      Except of course for the clown car jihadis.

      • Covadonga

        One theory is that the local imams didn’t want to publicize Pamela’s event by sending counter-protesters there.

        Another, the one that occurred to me when I heard about the gunmen, is that jihadist groups decided in advance to deal with this one physically, and they didn’t want collateral damage among their Muslim brothers…

  • LD McClellan

    Of Right and Wrong and Freedom

    Slandering People Who’re Attempting
    to Save You Is Not Only Ungrateful but It’s To Invite Sure Destruction

    Forward this message to everyone you
    can think of and encourage them to do likewise. Everyone on this earth needs to
    read this message immediately.

    want to make clear from the very outset of this message that if there’s anyone
    on this earth that can entertain for even the time it takes to blink their eyes
    that they’re going to shame me into apologizing for this message they have
    another think coming. I would not even consider apologizing for attempting to
    help them but I will most certainly pity them for being so foolish and
    ungrateful that they would not listen to the voice of love and sincere concern
    for their safety and freedom.

    you criticize Pam Geller and others like her, you are being ungrateful; you are
    slandering her and every non Muslim person on earth that risks their lives for
    you by attempting to warn you of the very real and mortal danger of Islam. You’re
    also blaspheming Jesus and the God of Christians in the same breath that did
    not shrink from risking death for criticizing his enemies in the harshest words
    calling them hypocrites and the sons of Satan without ever apologizing once
    because he loved the people they were harming. People who criticize other
    people for loving them enough to risk their lives to try to save them from harm
    need to be rebuked in the sternest way possible for being the naïve supporters
    of the enemy instead of defending the best friends they could possibly have.

    also slander those who care enough to risk their reputation and their lives for
    you by trying to warn you about the deceitful actions of a government that has consistently
    demonstrated that it can’t be trusted to act in the best interests of America and
    Americans but rather is selfishly forcing us to surrender our lives and freedom
    to a totalitarian world government with no concern what-so-ever for what we
    want or how many of us they harm or kill in the process.

    an action is right or wrong is not supposed to be determined by the way someone
    perceives the actions of another but only by the motives of that other person.
    That’s how true justice works and that’s how we all want to be judged; by our
    reason for doing something and not by the action. That’s what the golden rule
    requires. So, it doesn’t matter that Muslims were offended by Pam Geller or
    Geert Wilders or Robert Spenser. What matters is why she and they do what they
    do and it isn’t out of hate but out of love for their fellow Americans that
    want to remain free and not enslaved by Muslims or Marxists or any other brand
    of totalitarian. To criticize such people is to ungratefully and hypocritically
    slander and blaspheme them. When someone defends themselves and shoots an
    attacker, you don’t blame the person who was attacked because the attacker
    didn’t like being shot. You blame the attacker for the reason they were
    attacking someone who justly felt the need to shoot. Muslims, for example, unjustly
    blame any woman that they rape for causing the Muslim/s to rape them instead of
    condemning and punishing the rapists as true justice requires. Muslims openly
    declare that they want to destroy America and replace our Constitution with
    Sharia. They are clearly attacking America and Americans out of a desire to
    “kill America” and replace our Constitution, what we base our lives
    on, with Sharia. The Constitution does not give them the right to do this anymore
    than someone has the right to kill you just because they don’t like the way you
    talk or look or dress or eat etc. and we are perfectly justified in defending
    our lives, our rights, any way and with any level of force we deem necessary.
    Only idiots would let an enemy determine how victims could defend themselves or
    if they could even complain about being attacked or ridicule the enemy for
    being hypocrites.

    your self-declared totalitarian enemy to have the freedoms listed in our
    Constitution to use against us is suicidal and clearly in contradiction of the
    very purpose of the Constitution which was to forbid totalitarians and
    totalitarianism in America. It’s not actually possible for totalitarians of any
    kind no matter how peaceful they may act in the beginning to be legitimate
    citizens of America because they reject the very foundation of freedom on which
    America is based seeking to eventually subject us to slavery under Sharia
    instead by “justifying” any means including extreme violence. Therefore, they
    are not allowed the freedoms listed in our Constitution. Allowing them those
    freedoms is like the citizens of Troy opening the gates of the city and
    inviting the Greeks in to murder and enslave them and that would have been
    totally insane of them and it’s totally insane of Americans to let Muslims or
    any other enemy of freedom be free to rob them of those very freedoms.

    • Glenn Warren

      Well written and I will post it on my news page Please invite your friends to LIKE the page and follow a news feed which is support of the Constitution, Individual Liberty and Free Enterprise.

    • How right you are!! We Americans patriotic I might add must pressure our legislators before its to late to ram through legislation to not only outlaw this phony religion but also to make it illegal to posses their book called the Koran as it is currently printed better still outlaw it altogether!! It is clearly demonic, its promotes dying for their god in the process of killing others! How crazy can our government be to allow these animals or throwbacks into our country???? This progression of advancing sharia law however subtle must be reverse…Look at Saudi Arabia. Is it legal to own a bible in that country? Hell no!! We must do likewise and then some It must be give and take in this country and not just take it from the so-called supremisist religion that is Islam!!

  • wibbys1

    The incident in Texas was NOT tragic! Two perverts were killed and the attack was thwarted. One officer was wounded but I would gladly take a “wound” to see the Islamic pedophiles escorted to hell.
    In the words of the Viet Nam marine snipers, “They may be good guys, they may be bad guys, God is the judge, I just set appointments.”

  • screenwriter

    just wrote a screenplay titled; “planet of the muslim apes” is hollywood listening?

    • Glenn Warren

      I think “Apes” has been taken; maybe something more accurate like “inbred sons of Ishmael”?

      • PPs43

        Hey, maybe we can use my tune for the theme song! With the right orchestration, visual effects, and editing we might be onto something! Ray Stevens could do the vocal! But who do we cast in the part of the duck? Is that AFLAC bird available?

  • RCCA

    This is an old argument being replayed. Regarding the argument with Jasser about whether he is or is not a Muslim: according to Geller and Spencer, Jasser practices his own Islam and doesn’t have a theological leg to stand on, while Jasser retorts, who are you as a non-Muslim to tell me what is possible?

    Several years ago I thought that Geller and Spencer should find reform minded Muslims to partner with to advance the cause of examining, critiquing, and reforming Islam in the West, if only to offer plausibility to the claim they are not bigots. I was vigorously refuted with the argument that reforming Islam is theologically impossible and there are not enough reformers to make any difference. I surrendered: reformers are inconsequential outcasts and moderate Muslims as the silent majority are ultimately willing to go as the wind blows. If jihad advocates take power, the moderates will fall in line.

    I personally believe in the importance of keeping the discussion open about the inconsistency between Sharia Law and our Constitution and because of that
    Western Muslims will eventually figure out some way to reform Islam.

    Religion is not about being logical after all. I can’t help but notice the glaring logical inconsistency of Geller, for example, who claims to be a fierce and proud Jew and also claims that the Reform Judaism is not Judaism. Yet Geller consistently ignores the most fundamental law in Judaism about doing no work on the Sabbath, the custom of Orthodox Jewish women to practice physical modesty, and the prohibition of lashon hara. Still I would never claim she is not a Jew. That’s why I extend some slack to Reform Muslims.

    • Glenn Warren

      The glaring problem with reforming Islam, is that the book is the word of their god allah (otherwise and previously known as the polytheist arabian’s moon god). Further, mohamed (aka “cartoon guy”) was the perfect example of a man. So answer the riddle; how does any regular mortal edit the word of god or critique the life of the perfect man? If a mortal were to say one verse of the Koran is flawed, then they are saying god was flawed. If any mortal says that it is wrong to take a 9 year old wife, then they are saying that the perfect man was wrong. You can not use logic to square the round; it falls apart unless the mahdi shows up to make the changes. And that would probably not be a pretty transition. Your argument is typical of those that have not read the Islamic literature and looked at it from an Islamic perspective.

      • RCCA

        No, you are incorrect. My argument is typical of those who have read Islamic literature as well as other scriptures and understand that people invented religion. G-d exists or doesn’t, and you are free to decide depending on what you choose to believe. Some people think you have no choice and Gd will punish you for not believing. Or that there is a true religion and if you don’t get it right Gd will punish you. That’s a matter of “consciousness.”

        When the Temple was destroyed, the Mishkan (the place where Hashem dwelled) was lost, people were dispersed, and Jews figured out that Judaism and worship had to change — even though the instructions in the Torah didn’t change. In Christianity, Jews were blamed and punished for the death of Christ for two thousand years. That was a big issue. Only recently, since Pope Benedict XVI, was that doctrine changed.

        How does Islam change? By doing what is called introducing a third element — perhaps by changing the way people look at religion altogether, getting past the idea that any religion is perfect. The whole goal of any religion is: to develop Gd consciousness according to Muslims, to experience the Unity of Gd according to Jews, to experience the love of Christ according to Christians and ultimately for all to live a better life here on earth or in the afterlife. What Islam is bringing to the world today is a glaring expose of how flawed people’s understanding about religion really is and why that consciousness needs to change. IMO. Probably it will take fifty years or more before anything really changes. But it starts by people challenging Islam today.

        • defcon 4

          Take the jihad and rabid Jew hatred out of the holy books of islam and what are you left with?

          • RCCA

            Maybe a religion?

        • Lacouray Too

          In order to reform islam everything from the time moohamhead left Mecca to go to Medina would have to be deleted.
          We would then have to delete his attempted suicide, and paedophilia.
          What would we then have?

          • RCCA

            It’s not my problem. Leave that to the Muslims to fix. Our job is to shine the light and give them a reason to reform.

          • Lacouray Too

            YOU suggested reform.
            Why the suggestion if you have NO idea how such reform can be accomplished?

          • RCCA

            “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.” Mathew 7:7

            There are forces at work beyond our comprehension.

            In Hinduism’s sacred text, the Bhagavad Gita, it is written: Yoga stah, kuru karmani. Established in Being, perform action.

          • Lacouray Too

            Answer whenever you’re ready.

          • RCCA

            I don’t know what you are asking for, a flowchart with dates to reform Islam? I’m not in charge. What I’m saying is that if there is widespread recognition that there is a problem in Islam which has to be corrected by Muslims that is is an essential first step in the solution.

            I’ve done some research into people and groups who are working on reforming Islam. For example, one group is: Muslims for Progressive Values. Check them out if you want to know some concrete steps on how reform can be accomplished.

        • Glenn Warren

          I am not in disagreement with either Jon or RCAA; but the dilemma is how to effect a change in consciousness of the muslim brother and sisterhood (their Umma). IMHO, we are overly optimistic to imagine they will have this epiphany; as we see that the few muslims who soften to or leave the religion are targeted for death. Lacouray and Defcon 4 illuminate the problem.

      • jon wright

        we have to start by recognizing that Islam is not a religion but a cult. Moohahamit was not a prophet(profit) but a messenger 4 Allah(some even consider him as a warner) Basically religions need scriptures which he stole from most other religions and a prophet which he was not,even both Khadija and Aisha agreed he was not a prophet.By the way he himself stated he was a messenger. It was only after he died that some considered him a prophet. So Islam does not meet the 2 basic requirements of a religion. There are other requirements not met,too
        numerous to state. As a man he lacked many attributes which made him special. He was a peadophile and had great sexual urges. It has been stated he had about 62 sexual partners before he died. He claimed he was possessed by Satan a few times and saved by Khadija from jumping off a mountain. Some writers claim Moohahamit(sic) actually wrote the whole Islam bit himself including the angel “Gabriel”, Allah (from Al-ilah the pagan rock god to Allah the Kaaba rock god). Of course there was also Satan,Jinn. As 4 changing the Kornyan it seems an impossibility as that would require a large of Islamic scholars to accept.

        • Betty4440

          Robert had on his site the other day a video and the guy has studied islam for I think 30 years and he uncovered so much about old mo and the qur’an. and he said the qur’an was written years after old mo died.some things were taken out of the HOLY BIBLE and other places. and written down. in other words mo had nothing to do with the qur’an. so the qur’an is a LIE.the way I see it.. I think the guy name was Jim Smith.he has other videos on you tube watched a couple and he is good.

          • jon wright

            True. the Kornyan was put in place about 7 yrs post MooHAHAmit. It took about 7 different copies to arrive at the final monkey book. At lot of Muzzlems contributed to the book by supplying MooHAHAmit notes written on pieces of paper and other materials. The whole thing is really a joke. Here’s a fact that should blow ur mind. A pundit who studied all the battles involving Islam incl. all occupations of N.Africa,Byzantine empire,parts of Europe,etc came up with a figure of 235 Million souls that Islam killed since the 7th cent. How could any civilized person show any sympathy for those pagan savages? Really

  • sandra schmidt

    If I looked like that ugly hag, I would be shilling for hijab too!

    • Six Cents

      Bwahahahahaha… Perfect!

      ^ x100 for you.

  • PPs43

    In disparagement of all those who disparage Pam, Robert, and other critics, I penned this little ditty. When you sing it, please feel free to pick any tune you like.

    Mama Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be ISIS
    Lyrics by Villy Lutefisk

    Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be ISIS
    Don’t let ’em pick boogers and shtoom them old ducks
    Make ’em be Jewish or Christian and such

    Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be ISIS
    They’ll never stay home and they’re always alone
    Even with some goat they love

    Idiots ain’t easy to love and they’re harder to hold
    And they’d rather give you a stab than diamonds or gold
    ISIS black turbans and old bloodstained flags

    And each night begins a new day
    And if you don’t understand him and he don’t die young
    He’ll surely just explode away

    Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be ISIS
    Don’t let ’em pick boogers and shtoom them old ducks
    Make ’em be Jewish or Christians and such

    Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be ISIS
    They’ll never stay home and they’re always alone
    Even with some goat they love

    Idiots like shaggy old girl sheep, smokin’ old churches
    Little warm donkeys and children, girls under twelve
    And them that don’t know him won’t like him and them that do

    Sometimes won’t know how to take him
    He’s sure wrong and he’s different but his pride won’t stop him
    Doin’ things that make you think he’s gone nuts

    Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be ISIS
    Don’t let ’em pick boogers and shtoom them old ducks
    Make ’em be Jewish or Christian and such

    Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be ISIS
    They’ll never stay home and they’re always alone
    Even with some goat they love

    Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be ISIS
    Don’t let ’em pick boogers and shtoom them old ducks
    Make ’em be Jewish or Christian and such

    Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be ISIS

  • badbadlibs

    It’s the “Daily Beast” and from the picture it seems we know who they named it after.
    The truth and those on the left have never even shaken hands, never mind have a working relationship.

    • SJS

      You’re bad!

    • SJS

      Are you well? Haven’t seen you in a while.

      • badbadlibs

        Thanks for asking. I’m just going in different directions at the moment, but also dealing with some health issues as well. Again, thanks for asking.

        • SJS

          I wish you well.

          • badbadlibs

            Thank you for your kindness.

  • Judi

    “Which turned tragic last week”. No, it didn’t. Two jihadists were killed. It turned out well! What a foolish woman.

    • J Mason

      Texas cop should go freelance…..”One Hour Martyrizing”

    • Glenn Warren

      This event clearly shows the value of local militias and the 2nd amendment right of individual citizens to carry weapons capable of defending them from the followers of mohamed; particularly as the Obama administration has been quietly importing hundreds of thousands of the followers of Islam without thorough screening and risk assessment.

  • Glenn Warren

    I am impressed daily with Pamela’s thoughtful, detailed and eloquent articles about Islam and the apologists that defend it. The truth is on record, and the record grows showing clearly the evil intentions and acts emanating from the followers of mohamed.

  • El Cid

    If Geller and Spencer can’t or won’t say it, I will. The Constitution should be amended to outlaw Islam – outlawed and banned, all mosques shutdown, all Islamists deported.

    Cathy Young is an idiot. Liberals claim to be so smart, but when it comes to life and death issues, they are so dumb. Islam (read the Koran and the Hadiths) means to conquer us by force of arms. They prefer a death of a 1000 slices. It doesn’t take many ‘soldiers’ to do it; look at the mess in Syria and Iraq, it doesn’t take many to completely destroy cities, and kill thousands of innocent people. Moderate Islamist? Really? Ask them which verses they are willing to permanently delete from the Koran, Suras and Hadiths as being to violent and homicidal. I’d love to hear their answers, although it will probably be taqiyya and deception.

    • jon wright

      I agree wholeheartedly especially to outlaw Jihad inclined Muzzlems. For those of us that still take Islam lightly I suggest you all read the Kornyan(sic) (Koran)and Hadith and perhaps (if you still think its all made up) get a copy of Sharia law. Fasten UR safety belt because U wont believe what UR reading.

  • wildjew

    I am watching Bill O’Reilly tonight spend a lot of time talking about the left and how today’s left is stifling speech. He had Kirsten Powers (on first) who wrote a new book about the left and speech. Powers said she disagreed with O’Reilly on the free speech event in Texas. Then O’Reilly had Mary Katharine Ham and Juan Williams (who agrees with O’Reilly on Pamela’s event). Same topic only O’Reilly complains the right is almost as bad as the left in that he’s not gotten a fair shake from right-leaning websites on this Muhammad cartoon issue. The right O’Reilly says, did not portray his position properly or they left out facts he presented about ISIS, etc. I think O’Reilly is doing some damage control.

    • Underzog

      I don’t think Mary Catherine Ham agrees with O’Reilly (Ted Baxter) on this, however. Unlike O’Reilly, Mary Catherine Ham seems to stand squarly with free speech. As for Ekaterine Jung (she came from Russia as a late adolescent), she is a big Islamic butt kisser. She also got the Brevik story wrong and never corrected the misleading narrative.

      • wildjew

        I think you are right about Mary Catherine Ham. I got that impression tonight.

        • Underzog

          Mary Catherine Ham did say, “buts are fine (some cuter than others), but not in front of freedom of speech.” At least I think that is the quote.

    • Gail Combs

      Breitbart (John Nolte) did a real tap dance on O’Reilly and Reverend [Franklin] Graham.

      It is short and sweet and so true.

      • dfw63

        If Franklin Graham takes a position opposite from mine, I immediately re-evaluate and pray about it. It’s because I respect him and his Dad.

        If O’Reilly does, who cares, we all know he’s a finger in the wind blowhard. It’s because I have no respect for him.

        • wildjew

          I disagree with Revered Graham that I need to love savages. I do not love savages and I do not pray “for” evil men like President Obama.

  • SJS

    She went way the hell out there for a smear. Wow!

  • wildjew

    Watching Jeb Bush’s interview with Megyn Kelly tonight. The free speech event in Texas came up. I will put Jeb down as “I support free speech, BUT” like Bill O’Reilly, Donald Trump, Judge Jeanine Pirro, etc.

    • dfw63

      I watched Jeanine’s comments and put her in the other camp.

      • wildjew

        What did you think of the following line of questioning?

        Was the judge playing “devil’s advocate?”

        • dfw63

          Thanks for the link. Yes, I think she was giving Pam a platform to make her points against her critics. Jeanine mentioned “you know where I’m coming from on this”.

          • wildjew

            Sorry, “You know where I’m coming from on this” does not impress me anymore than Bill O’Reilly’s (paraphrasing) ‘no one is a bigger supporter of free speech than I am’ as he proceeds to eviscerate Pamela. Judge Pirro talks like she is solid but when she says things like the jihadists are perverting the religion of Islam she looks fearful.

          • dfw63

            O’Reilly abandoned and accused Pam, Pirro supported her. I wish there was a master list of weasels and supporters that resulted from this.

          • wildjew

            You cannot compare the judge to Bill O’Reilly, you are right. O’Reilly has capitulated in the face of violence and threats of violence. Let’s keep watching her as this sharia scourge progresses here in America. We will see how solid she is.

          • dfw63

            I agree. I was really disappointed to hear that Andrew Napolitano caved.

  • Fred Smith

    who is Cathy Young?

    • Underzog

      A Libertarian type. She came to America from Communist Russia as a young adult woman so she may not understand what free speech is. She is hysterical in her support of Muslims, active terrorists or otherwise, and she puts out such turnspeak nonsense as “Stop the Jihad against Muslims.” Maybe Muslims are reminiscent of those Left wing mascots Thomas Sowell, Ph.d spoke about who are cherished despite any depredations they do. I guess to excuse the Muslim terrorists, Ekaterina Jung (her original name) feels the need to demonize and smear Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.

      The Trayvon Martin Lied

  • dfw63

    “Which turned tragic in Dallas …..:.”

    Good grief you dhimmi witch, it turned magnificent!
    Please go to Syria or Saudi or Somalia and offer yourself up as a vessel of worship for the mujahadeen. Please.

  • Soxtory

    Why are Liberal women like this Cathy Young always ugly?

  • Pamela, this libel needs to be stopped with a lawsuit against her, period.

  • Underzog

    This Ekaterina Jung aka Cathy Young is a big Islamic suck up. While I am quoting from memory, I remember her complaining about Rifqa Bary being separated from her loving family. While she was not the intended target, it is clear that Ekaterina Jung needed to move the equivalent of heaven and earth in byte marks to keep up her criminal rationalization of Islamic terrorism and depredations. I suspect it is an emotional thing with her. It is almost as if she has adopted Muslims, terrorist or otherwise, as the mascots Thomas Sowell, Ph.d wrote about in his “Vision of the Annointed” book. She is a dangerous threat to the country she was not born in and does not understand very much. Part of her criticism against Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller seems of the Soviet mindset, which was the country she was born in, btw….

  • Thank you for the extensive rebuttal. Some were obviously a vicious smear but others required details that the average reader doesn’t have. This is a helpful compilation of answers with links. Daniel Greenfield took a few but the complete article needed a line by line rebuttal … and it got it. Brava!

  • yotambien

    In short…ISLAM BUILT THIS.

Pin It on Pinterest