Nancy Kobrin reviews The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) at FrontPage:
Recently, I was invited to teach 300 law enforcement officers about Islam, radical Islam and Islamist terrorists. It was an honor and a privilege, but it was also difficult work: It is no small task making sure that these officers, really our first line of defense in the war on terrorism, fully understand both the history of Islam and the motivations of those who are willing to murder in its name.But it is especially challenging for the officers. Beyond being able to distinguish moderate Islam from more extremist strains, they must be on good terms with the local Muslim community in order for its members to trust them with sensitive information, which, at times, must be turned into actionable intelligence. They are not afforded the luxury of time. The question before them is no longer if Islamic suicide attacks will occur but when and where.
Equally as important, they must understand why. Why do terrorists lash out in the name of Islam? To explain this to my officer students, I attempted to demystify the somewhat exotic light in which Islam is too commonly held. I recounted the history of Islam, pointing out that the five Pillars of Islam have their equivalents in Judaism because the prophet Muhammad had borrowed extensively from the Jews with the hope that they would convert. When that didn’t happen, I noted, he turned to jihad. Still, despite my reliance on everything from PowerPoint presentations to video clips, I struggled to come up with more vivid images that might shed light on why this supposedly peace-loving religion drives some of its adherents to commit acts of mass murder.
If only I had Robert Spencer’s new work, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and The Crusades), my teaching would have gone much more smoothly.
Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, an invaluable web site that daily informs readers of Islam’s global jihad, cuts right to the chase in this absorbing antidote to the received wisdom about Islam. He turns his attention to the most problematic nature of Islam: its ideologies of warring. In this context, Spencer discusses not just the more gruesomely familiar form of jihad, suicide attacks, but also jihad in the form of Islamic proselytizing, da’wa, in which prisoners are pressured to revert to Islam. (It is “revert” instead of convert because Islam holds that we were all born Muslim, except that our parents lost the correct path, the sabil, and raised us incorrectly.) Spencer also examines Islam’s hostility to women, as well as its historical denigration of religious and ethnic minorities living under Islamic rule, Ahl al-Dhimma.
Spencer repeatedly demonstrates that jihad is part and parcel of the fabric of Islam; it is ingrained in the very ideologies of the holy text, the Qur’an. Spencer minces no words. Two of his chapters are aptly subtitled “Religion of War” and “Religion of Intolerance.” He also takes remarkably precise aim at the politically correct myths that preclude an honest discussion about Islam.Chances are, you’ve heard them all: “The Qur’an teaches believers to take up arms only in self-defense;” “The Qur’an and the bible are equally violent;” “Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists;” “Islam was once the foundation of a great cultural and scientific flowering;” “Christianity and Islam spread in pretty much the same way;” “The Crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world;” “The Crusades were fought to convert Muslims to Christianity by force;” “The Crusades were called against Jews in addition to Muslims;” “The Crusades were bloodier than the Islamic jihads;” and “The Crusades accomplished nothing.”
Against such feel-good bromides, Spencer quotes Ibn Warraq, a Muslim apostate and author who wrote that while there are moderate Muslims, Islam itself is not moderate. Most people are in denial when it comes to this candid observation. As for the misunderstood Crusades, Spencer sets the record straight: the Crusades were waged as a defense against the relentless onslaught of Islamic jihad. My favorite PC myth—concerning the supposedly Great Golden Age of Islamic Spain—is convincingly laid to rest by Spencer.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam is replete with useful, and user-friendly informational boxes. One such box traces current jihadist behavior back to the life and times of Muhammad, thereby proving the degree to which Islam is influenced by the warlord mentality of the prophet. Another box contrasts Muhammad’s bellicosity with the peaceful message of Jesus: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44), while Muhammad’s ideology is one of power: “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.” (Qur’an 8:60) Not exactly the pacifist portrayed by conventional wisdom.
Another valuable feature of the book is the list of bullet points that accompanies each chapter. Titled “Guess what?” it presents some uncomfortable truths about the Islam. For instance, turn to Chapter 6, “Islamic Law: Lie, Steal, and Kill,” and you discover the following: Islam’s only overarching moral principle is “if it is good for Islam, it’s right.” Spencer does not flinch from pointing out that “Islam allows for lying, as well as stealing and killing in certain circumstances,” and that “This leads to large-scale deception campaigns today.” You won’t hear that from the peddlers of political correctness.
Perhaps the most important aspect of Spencer’s book is its timeliness. Islam is widely acknowledged to be the world’s fastest growing religion, but few know just how fast. In fact, Islam is estimated to have reached 1.5 billion adherents thereby surpassing Christianity’s 1.2 billion faithful and dwarfing Judaism’s world-wide population at a mere 13-15 million. Leading counter-terrorist expert, R. Paz, who heads Prism, (The Project for the Research of Islamist Movements, www.e-prism.org), recently told the Christian Science Monitor that while most Muslims are in the moderate camp, "If we're talking about percentages, maybe the supporters of global jihad are only 1 percent of the Muslim world.'' That means, then, that there are about 15 million would-be Muslim terrorists.
In other words, the need to understand Islam will only grow more urgent. Spencer has done a remarkable job lifting the veil on its tenets. Previously, the failure to counter the specious arguments of Islam’s politically correct defenders may have been understandable. Similarly, many could be forgiven for doubting whether Islam could really show so little capacity for seeking middle ground. Now, with the publication of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), they no longer have an excuse.
To order a copy of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), click here.
When you next are talking to a policeman, or visiting the station, you might do well to have a copy of the book under your arm, or mention it as a guide for those who are trying to understand Islam.
In fact, there must be police, F.B.I. agents, and others who visit this site. They can read the article above, and email it to those they think might benefit from its contents.
And while they are at it, perhaps they will become acqauinted with this website and its Archives, and possibly with www.faithfreedom.org, www.dhimmitude.org, www.challenging-islam.org, and any number of other sites which, I am sure, can be recommended by others, with better memories, in postings below.
Try to imagine World War II being fought without any kind of Propaganda Division, any kind of information being disseminated about the enemy's motivations, what makes the ideology of that enemy less or more attractive to others, the possible ways in which that enemy might be demoralized, or appeals to divisions within that enemy camp be exploited. Imagine that none of that had been possible, because early on, without understanding Islam, our leaders simply settled on the phrase "war on terror" and -- a number of them being quite unnecessarily respectful of the word "religion" and anything that was commonly considered to be a "religion" (or still more inhibiting, a "great religion" whose members must not under any circumstances be offended, in any way) surely -- surely? -- was a force for the Good.
That is why the education of the public, the public that is threatened without understanding either why, or how, and is subject to constant brainwashing and apologetics that help to lead to bad policies, and indifference to events far more important than, for example, what does or does not happen in Iraq, such as the demographic conquest of Western Europe by Muslims, whose belief-system is based entirely on a division of the world between Muslims and Non-Muslims, Believers and Infidels, dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb, and requires unending and uncompromising hostility between them, until Islam dominates and Muslims rule everyhere. Qur'an and Hadith and Sira show this beyond any doubt. And so does the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam, which where not fully enforced is nonetheless taken as a model and guide. And history -- the 1350-year history of Muslim conquest of non-Muslim lands and peoples, and the subsequent subjugation of those peoples (Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and any and all others -- it hardly matters, their fate was in the end the same)--demonstrates that whenever it was possible to put those tenets into practice by Muslims, they did so.
We have to set ourselves to school, a nation of auto-didacts, and help to educate others. The Idols of the Age, that tell us that what we know about Islam cannot possibly be true, that everyone shares the same basic desires for sweetness and light, for pluralism and tolerance, because isn't the whole world kin?--these Idols work against the truth, prepare people not to believe the truth but to refrain from studying, and finding out too much, lest it upset their carefully-constructed artificial paradise of -- not what is, but what they think ought to be, wishing and hoping, hoping and wishing, but never, ever, studying and thinking and knowing and understanding. For all that would go against the grain. It would take too much time. It would be, in every sense, too painful.
And we don't want "every sense." We only want the Tolerance/Peace/Diversity unique senss, the sens unique -- and sens unique, in French, means Dead End. And that is what Infidel policies, in war and quasi-peace, will lead to: a Dead End. It is we whose ways and means, and lives, will, in the end, be dead. Our Dead End.
Just grab a book. Then another, then another. Start reading, start studying. The theory and practice of Islam. You can do it.
If only I had Robert Spencer’s new work, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and The Crusades), my teaching would have gone much more smoothly.
Why doesn't she have it? Did she at least mention it to her class?
Borg:
I'd hazard a guess that it wasn't on the list of "approved" teaching materials.
Every law enforcement office in the country should be in possession of this book.
"Hugh, do you plan to consolidate all your posts into a book? That would be an instant bestseller similar to PIG to Islam.
Amen to that. I've been wearing out my printer making my own personal copies of Hugh's insightful and cogent posts.
Hugh's unacknowledged Doppelganger and Moriarty over at the Examined Life philosophy forum (he goes by the non-name "Anonymous" there), a brilliant mind who mirrors the style and substance of his other, yet seems to utterly rejects his commitment to opposing Islam. We may never know if Hugh's Anonymous Doppelganger can be persuaded to open his mind, unless Hugh deigns to engage him in a discussion.
At any rate, take the following verdict (the hammer falls at the final paragraph below) of Anonymous not as a knee-jerk reflex of a dolt, but as the words of a person as erudite, intelligent, perceptive and well-rounded as Hugh, and ask yourself, how could this be?
"The construction of a thesis is quite a complex process, in which prejudgements perform a crucial role.
Take the following scenario. I walk into a bookshop and browse the shelves. The title of a book catches my eye (or an author’s name, or a dust-jacket illustration) and I form a judgement as to what that book is about. That judgement becomes the prejudgement which determines my initial interest in the book, and which I carry into my subsequent reading of the book.
So I take down the book and read the publisher’s blurb on the flyleaf or back cover. What I read there may challenge my prejudgement, so I have to alter my judgement as to what the book is about; and this in turn becomes the prejudgement I carry into my continued reading of the book.
As is my wont, I will them look at the contents page and the index, and the bibliography in order to see where the book is coming from; and, again, what I find there might challenge my prejudgement and oblige me to revise my latest judgement. Then, armed with this yet further amended prejudgement, I will read any introductory and summary material the book contains (the book’s preface and conclusion), to get the outline of the argument being advanced; and, again, this may challenge the prejudgement I carried into this stage of my reading.
By now, I will have developed a fairly detailed prejudgement about what the book is about, its main thesis and primary argument. I will then flip back and forth through the text to identify the detailed arguments by which each premise of the primary argument is supported; at which point I will probably scrabble around in my pockets for a fag packet, on the back of which I can begin to sketch out what is called in the trade a ‘rational reconstruction’ of the those arguments, and begin to notice logical gaps and possible weaknesses in the argumentation. And, in the course of rationally reconstructing those arguments this, I might discover that I had got a hold of the wrong end of the stick in places, that the primary argument (or even the main thesis of the book) is not what I took it to be, and have to yet again revise my former prejudgements, re-read sections of the book in the light of my revised understanding, consider the interpretations of other readers, relate the meaning of what has been written (e.g. matters of terminology or jargon or metaphor) to the historical, social, and or political context in which it has been written, and generally delve deeper into the writing in pursuit its meaning. By which time a bookshop assistant has usually asked me whether I intend to buy the book or not, called security, and had me escorted from the premises.
But you get the idea: I gradually construct a thesis as to what the book is about through the falsification of a succession of ever more informed prejudgements which guide my reading, until I arrive at a judgement which the text does not resist. It is, of course, a moot point whether anyone can ever reach such a judgement, whether anyone can ever be done reading a book, whether thesis-construction is ever anything more than a work-in-progress for open minds in an open society.
So, yes: my response to such lofty journals as FrontPage Mag and Jihad Watch and Campus Watch are the expression of prejudice. And from what little I’ve seen of them through my tears of laughter, the prejudgement I will carry into my next reading of the funnies is that they are Islamophobic and therefore biased in that direction.
http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/
Now I know what Dogberry meant. Comparisons are odorous -- especially when they rank.
Here's what I can't say about Islam...but will say it anyway.
1-) Islam constitutes conspiracy to commit multiple murders.
2-)Islam in essence IS terrorism.
3-)Islam worships the Arabian moon-god al-lah which is NOT the Judeo-Christian deity Yahweh. (Yes, Islam is idolatry).
4-)Muhammad could NOT have seen the archangel Gabriel for the very simple reason that Gabriel was in the company of Yahweh. Yahweh is NOT al-lah and there is NO connection between the two (and hence Gabriel would have no knowledge of Al-lah to share with Muhammed). Thus whatever Muhammad saw it clearly and ABSOLUTELY was NOT Gabriel. This version of Islam's very founding is seriously bogus.
5-)Islam more likely evolved out of old Middle Eastern human sacrifice sects. According to one source I read, Muhammad was himself almost killed as a human sacrifice when he was a child. Now, note that the enmity Arabs have held for Jews is actually a very ancient one. The theme of Arab antagonism toward Jews can be seen in a number of Biblical tales (Samson and Delilah, the death of John the Baptist, etc.) No convincing explanation has ever really been offered to explain this, especially as this conflict predates Islam by many centuries. I have a thought about it though: When a society (in this case the Jews) that worships a deity that commands its followers NOT to kill except in self-defense and to hold life precious meets a society (in this case the Arabs)that kills to placate its own deity (human sacrifice), the human sacrifice practicing society is going to militarize and devour the society that opposes human sacrifice. And that pretty much explains Islamic ideology as far as I can see.
6-)Muslims are GOING to kill our people again. That is one reason why their religion has been established here. We have been selected as a supply of fresh blood with which to placate their moon-god. Until we 'submit'.
Nancy Kobrin said "[the police officers] must be on good terms with the local Muslim community in order for its members to trust them with sensitive information".
Is that really it? Have there been any cases of Muslims turning in Muslims for being too Muslim? We have had many, many cases of Muslims becoming "very religious" and acting secretively and spouting violent rhetoric. But we always seem to hear about this after they have attained martyrdom, not before.
So is it really about gaining their trust, or is it about not raising CAIR's ire? Is it really about going to absurd lengths to avoid the appearance of bias in a multicultural society?
US_infidel said "Hugh, do you plan to consolidate all your posts into a book?"
When will he run for political office, so that we can finally have a leader who is in touch with some semblance of reality?
If one found someone who was
mad
aggrieved
easily offended
feels entitled
overbearing
he certainly wouldnt be a member of the religion of peace
when will the massmedia wake up ?
Every law enforcement officer in this country should read the PIG.
Now I know what Dogberry meant. Comparisons are odorous -- and sometimes rank.
Yet another remarkable resemblance -- Anonymous also in much the same manner leavens his responses with elliptical diffidence and allusion-sprinkled arrogance!
Pythagoras, much as I disapprove of Islam, I see no "Arab" hand in the cases of Delilah vs. Samson or Herod against John the Baptism. Delilah, the book of Judges tells us, was a Philistine--hence a descendant of the Aegean peoples who invaded the land of Canaan from the sea rather than from the desert. As for Herod, he was by heritage an Idumaean, which means a descendant of Edom, the nation begun by Esau, who was Jacob's brother (not Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arabs, and older half-brother to Jacob's father, Isaac). The Idumaeans were conquered by the Jews in Maccabaean times and forcibly Judaized. Hence, the family of Herod probably thought of themselves as grafted into the line of Jacob. They were puntillious enough about Jewish law that Augustus Caesar said of Herod the Great (grandfather to Herod Agrippa, who had John beheaded) that he would rather be Herod's pig (no offense to our host's fine book) than Herod's son.
The Arabs were the peoples of interior Arabia until the 7th century AD, when Islam made them a conquering people. Before that era and after the time of Christ, the Arabic language was scarcely written, and most Middle Easterners were Aramaic-speakers. In the late Bronze Age, when there was no smith in Israel and Shimshon ha-Shophet (Samson the Judge) got an unwelcome haircut,probably both Samson and his faithless female spoke Canaanite (a form of which survives as Hebrew)--although Delilah's ancestors probably originally spoke a pre-Greek language of the Aegean region.
And, such folks certainly were not Muslims.
Kepha--
I was referring to the antagonism toward the Jews which is plainly evident in the Old Testament. I DO agree with your historical analyses--but I do not think they disprove what I am saying.
I think we may have to go back further in time than Samson and Delilah to understand the antagonism toward the Jews in the 'Arab' world.
Saudi Arabia was once a territorial possession of ancient Babylon. And much of what is believed to be "Arab" I think probably originated from Babylon. Possibly the origins of Islam itself (although this will be contested due to lack of evidence). I think that there was a strong cultural influence from Babylon that permeated the overall Middle East scene which the many ethnic groups you mention were likely influenced by. I'm sure by now you think I'm full of it, and I admit I am not a specialist in the region's history, but realize that Islam DOES retain cultural influences from Babylon (and Sumeria) and it may well be that Muslims are worshiping a Babylonian idol. And somewhere in there may lie the real explanation for the Arab ("Islamic") antagonism toward the Jews.
In addition, the Canaanites and Phoenicians ARE believed to have worshiped the same god as the Muslims do today (the Arabian moon-god which was also known as Baal and may have been the same as Sin of Babylon). Palestine was in the Middle East and was probably influenced by millennia-old cultural elements at work there for centuries even if the Philistines and Canaanites came from elsewhere. Incidentally, if the Philistines WERE worshiping the moon-god (aka al-lah or ba-al) that would explain the Arabs' desire to possess it as they share the same object of veneration. The Jews worshiped a different deity, Yahweh.
Many of the folks of the Old testament such as the Philistines were forerunners to who we now know as Muslims--especially if they worshiped the same idol and followed many of the same cultural beliefs.