Conservative pundits are unilateral on how they feel about Islam. They willingly fail to make the distinction between the religion and the ideology. Republican leaders, in one way or another, believe the only solution is to isolate Muslims to the Middle East. Liberals are divided on how to address this controversial issue, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, because a solution to stopping terrorism’s link to religion shouldn’t come easy.

Yet, there is a polarization between liberals today. There are those who stay true to the principles of liberalism and attempt to have a dialogue that can lead to the framework of a solution. Then, there are those who have betrayed those principles for the sake of multiculturalism.

These Regressives, a term coined by British anti-extremist activist, Maajid Nawaz, relentlessly attack the characters of anyone who criticizes Islam or seeks to establish a dialogue on its real-world impact.

It’s important to make the distinction between the religion Islam, which is practiced through many interpretations, and Islamism. Islamism is the politicization of the religion and implementing any interpretation of its dogma as official law.

Time and again, regressive liberals have allied themselves with Islamists in their misguided cause to protect the religious group from discrimination. Some, like prominent conversationalist George Galloway, openly support Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hezbollah, while others do it behind the guise of charities, such as War on Want.

According to recordings of undercover tapes obtained by the Telegraph, a rally sponsored by the charity featured speakers that made anti-Semitic claims, called for the destruction of Israel and openly supported terrorist acts committed by Palestinians.

For many states in the Muslim world, Islamic law is the only credence that matters. Although since the emergence of the Arab Spring revolts, Muslims across the Middle Eastern region have become conflicted on whether or not religion-based laws should exist. Those who wish to take no part in the demise of civility look west for refuge.

Europe’s Mediterranean coast is no longer a scene of trade of merchandise and culture between the Muslim and European societies, but the site of thousands of migrants, fleeing one world to another.

According to a 2014 Eurostat chart, the nationalities of the top three migrant groups fleeing to Europe are Syrian, Afghani and Iraqi. All three states either have a powerful religious sect in their governments or are under threat from jihadi militants. These migrants are not only fleeing the conflicts in their countries but also the Islamist ideology that fuels the chaos.

It’s perplexing that a region warring over the Islamist mandate exists 400 miles across the sea from another region that has already determined the very values that are being fought over.

The Western world came to the conclusion of the separation of church and state after hundreds of years of violent debate. So why must the Muslim world go through the same savagery that the West did?

A viewpoint maintained by Islamists and Jihadists alike is that adopting principles and values from the colonialist west is heresy regardless of the fact that the value of human rights is universal, which is why it’s called human rights and not Western rights. Advocates for this type of integration are labeled as Islamophobic, ignorant, neoconservative or colonialist by regressive liberals. If the rights advocate is a member of the Muslim community, then they are called a porch monkey, traitor or native informant.

The regressive left inadvertently appeases the human violations in the Muslim world, and would-be violations in Europe, for the sake of multiculturalism.

While a guest speaker on CNN, journalist and author Rula Jebreal claimed that Islamic extremism is a problem to be solved by only Muslims because white non-Muslims don’t speak Arabic, and thus cannot understand the culture.

Interestingly enough, that same logic is used by Islamists when defending themselves against scrutiny. The claim is not only false, since a sizable number of the global Muslim community doesn’t speak Arabic, but it is also a form of ethnocentrism. To claim that there is only one language in which God bestowed his message comes across as ethnic superiority.

It’s claims like Jebreal’s that are used to discredit those who suggest a link between terrorism and Islam. An episode of this type of character attack was Ben Affleck’s discussion with renowned atheist Sam Harris on the HBO show, “Real Time with Bill Maher.”

Affleck repeatedly charged Harris and Maher with claims of being racist and Islamophobic, despite Islam not being a race, the duo citing polls and Harris’s detailed research that supports there is a link between certain interpretations of Islam to terrorism.   

Regressives constantly attack the characters of conversationalists, human rights campaigners and secularists who try to establish a dialogue on Islamism and free speech. This is not upholding the cause of a persecuted minority, but pandering to an ideology as revolting as fascism.

Kamel Daoud, an Algerian novelist and independent journalist, wrote an article on Europe’s migrant crisis for the New York Times, called “Cologne – City of Illusions”. Despite Daoud’s criticism of both left and right wing politics on their handling of the crisis, he was labeled an Islamophobe by regressive liberals who found his opinion on Islam and suggestions of integration as a neoconservative attack on all Muslims.

The attacks on his character have since caused him to decide to retire from journalism and write only fiction.

Similar character attacks were made against Nawaz for co-authoring a book with Harris called “Islam and the Future of Tolerance,” which was a compilation of email exchanges between the two on Islam.

Nathan Leans, an editor-in-chief for Aslan Media and member of the advisory board for the UK-based anti-Muslim bigotry watchdog group, TellMama, called him Harris’ “Muslim validator” and “lapdog”.

Murtaza Hussain, a writer for Glenn Greenwald’s online news publication The Intercept, felt so aggravated that Nawaz had a conversation with a non-Muslim secularist on how to find a solution to Islamism, that he posted a photo on Twitter of Nawaz with Harris stating “Nice shot of Sam and his well-coiffed talking monkey,”. An appalling thing to write from any rational person, let alone a reputable journalist whose profile on the Intercept states “His work focuses on human rights, foreign policy, and cultural affairs.” Yet Hussain relentlessly tries to discredit an ally by principle for having a dialogue with a member of a different sect of liberalism and he does it in a most disgraceful way.

It’s a bittersweet irony to see these two gentlemen, who are well-versed in bigotry and racism go on Twitter and make bigoted and racist remarks about Nawaz. In a world where accountability is taken across the board, an idealistic perspective that Regressives try to perfect with the avid use political correctness, both would have been chided for their racist comments.

Too bad that world doesn’t exist, as Lean and Hussain have refused to admit the fault in their actions. Hussain doubled down in his insults and called Nawaz a “native informant” and Harris’ “porch monkey.” Both retain their status as reputable commentators on the issue of Islamism and the phantom expertise of Islamophobia, which is a shame, because accountability is how we regulate ourselves when we are wrong and adapt to make sure the same mistake doesn’t happen twice.

When people who hold positions of great influence on controversial issues, in some cases, even more so than politicians, are not held accountable, it harms their cause and damages the credibility of those they falsely accuse.