"Legions of jihadists are determined to advance the cause of a universally dominant Islam -- not just by violence, but by encroaching Islamic law and custom through litigation, political correctness, and exploitation of the West's crisis of confidence. In exposing this agenda, no writer has been more fearless, relentless, and effective than Robert Spencer. In Stealth Jihad he unfolds the comprehensive threat as well as it's ever been done." -- Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review legal affairs editor and bestselling author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad
Amazon curently ranks Stealth Jihad at number 636 in total book sales. Well done!
Not OT; more evidence of Stealth Jihad.
We all know of how the MSM mostly refrains from including the term "Muslim" in many a story where the perpetrators of awful deeds become, instead, "Asian youths" or some other such euphemism.
Here's the reverse, whereby the inclusion of a victim of violence's Islamic religion is included for seemingly no reason.
Black Muslim Teenager Beaten
Or could the reason be a subtle play at increasing one's sympathy for poor, put-upon Muslims in America?
I'm wondering if this won't turn out to be a "cried wolf" story, what with his description of his body vibrating, and all.
http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/staten_island_teen_gang_beat_m.html
I'm glad someone pointed out the beating of the black teenager where news networks felt compelled to mention that he was a Muslim.
All the evidence suggests that his attackers were attacking him solely because he was black and they were angry about having a black president. All the evidence suggests they did not know or care that he was a Muslim.
The media's intended lesson here is that when a Muslim is the victim ISLAM is the victim. When a Muslim is the perpetrator ISLAM is NOT the perpetrator (even if they do it for Islamic reasons). The media needs to have a good hard look at itself.
While it is possible it is a hoax, it seems highly unlikely given the extent of his injuries.
But back to the topic at hand... what I really wanted to comment on was this book...
Is this book going to be as bad as his other book which goes on about the Crusades and other irrelevant racist drivel from hundreds of years ago? Or does it stick to the topic of stealth jihad? Does it support racist wars and racist apartheid regimes? Or does it only support nonracist secularism?
NeverAMuslim:
Oddly enough, my book about the Crusades is the one about the Crusades, and my book about stealth jihad is about the stealth jihad.
It would be stupid, I'm sure you would agree, to make my Crusades book about stealth jihad and my stealth jihad book about the Crusades.
I don't support any racist wars or apartheid at all, or any racism. I do support Israel, which is a racist or apartheid state only in the fevered imaginings of Islamic jihadists and their addled Leftist allies. Get over it.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
From above: But back to the topic at hand... what I really wanted to comment on was this book...
Obviously you have not read it, so how can you comment?
The real reason you commented was to start sht.
Why else?