[1] My Weekly Standard reviews Andrew Bostom's superb sourcebook [2] The Legacy of Jihad, and edges ever so close to acknowledging the point that the book actually makes. Ever so close, but not unexpectedly given the magazine's general hopelessness about the global jihad, not quite there.

It's a disquieting read. Counter to President Bush's simplistic characterization of Islam as a religion of peace, the truth is far more nuanced; parts of the Koran call for peace, other verses have a decidedly different tenor.

In the 1,300 odd years of Islam's existence, there have been peaceful interpreters and practitioners of Islam and war-like ones. What The Legacy of Jihad shows is that whether the war-like interpreters of Islam "hijacked" a peaceful or religion or not, their presence has been a near constant menace for well over a millennium. In other words, popular and respected clerics such as Yussuf al-Qaradawi (who has vowed that Islam will conquer Europe and America) and war-mongering leaders such as Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadenijad are not historic anomalies. Instead, they are links in a chain of Islamic leaders who have practiced jihad passionately for almost 14 centuries.

BOSTOM'S BOOK is likely to be controversial because it traces a history that polite society often seems unwilling to discuss.

Ain't it the truth.

He explains that phrases like "Islam expanded in the 8th and 9th century" are often used to describe the religion's history, but are rarely accompanied by an explanation of how this expansion occurred. The answer, Bostom reveals, is simple: It all happened through war.

Quoting Islamic scholars from the Dark Ages through the 20th century, Bostom documents the consistent and usually prevailing presence of an Islam bent on converting or conquering "non-believers." The Legacy of Jihad charts the development of a code whereby it was each Muslim's duty to spread the faith by war. What's more, Islamic scholars developed a depressingly detailed set of rules prescribing the correct way to treat non-believers. One thing in this code was paramount--the best non-believers could hope for was second-class citizen status and an oppressive "head-tax." Other options included slavery and death.

Bostom also debunks the comforting notion that such beliefs and practices are relics of ancient history. For instance, the Islamic slave trade that planted its roots over a millennium ago sadly continues to thrive today in places such as the Sudan.

The philosophy of offensive jihadists has also remained consistent through the ages. Not only does Bostom reprint passages from Islamic scholars from nearly a millennium ago belligerently calling for jihad, he shows the expansion of their thinking in the modern era. Perhaps most informative is a speech he reprints from Ayatollah Khomeini who wasn't enthusiastic about the "religion of peace" concept: Said Khomeini, "All those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the world . . . Those who know nothing about Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. [They] are witless!"

AMONG THE WITLESS are many American academics, such as Georgetown's John Esposito. In his book, What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam,Esposito describes jihad this way: "Literally 'struggle' or 'exertion.' 'Greater' jihad is the struggle within oneself to live a righteous life and submit oneself to God's will. 'Lesser' Jihad is the defense of the Muslim community."

Esposito's definition of jihad, especially "lesser" jihad, is ahistorical; the wars that spread Islam weren't defensive. Certainly none of Khomeini's or al-Qaradawi's rhetoric suggests a defensive stance. While one could argue that, properly defined, jihad solely refers to an individual's struggle for godliness, Bostom's book proves that this definition has seldom been a monopoly view in the Islamic world.

One could argue? Who could argue? Properly defined? By whom? Jihad in the Qur'an certainly doesn't refer solely to an individual's struggle for godliness. Just consult 2:193, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, and so many others ad infinitum. These are reinforced by ahadith such as Sahih Muslim 4294, in which Muhammad counsels that nonbelievers should be offered conversion, subjugation, or death. Twentieth-century jihad theorists like Hassan Al-Banna and Abdullah Azzam made great headway among Muslims worldwide by arguing -- correctly -- that the idea of jihad as a spiritual struggle was based on a weak hadith, and that jihad principally and primarily meant fighting in the Qur'an and for Muhammad and the early Muslims.

The fact that My Weekly Standard could have a mountain of information supporting this staring them in the face in Bostom's book and still not be sure "whether the war-like interpreters of Islam 'hijacked' a peaceful or religion or not" evidences a massive case of denial, and one that most of the conservative and liberal mainstream media still suffers from. And as long as this continues, our ability to meet the full dimensions of this threat will be hamstrung.

At least it's good that My Weekly Standard reviewed the book, and favorably, unlike most books about jihad terrorism, which they have regally ignored.

Also, don't miss Jamie Glazov's interview with Andrew Bostom [3] here.