The always acute and perceptive David Yerushalmi of SANE sent me the following message about Jacob Laksin's review of my book Stealth Jihad, and my response to that review.
Dear Mr. Spencer:I saw your response to Jacob Laksin’s Pajamas Media Book Review and was sufficiently curious to take a look at it. Your response, while polite to a fault, was not properly focused on what the Laksin critique really means.
Since you chose not to, for whatever reason, let me respond more substantively to Mr. Laksin’s critique of your valuable and timely book, Stealth Jihad. Let me begin with this. While Mr. Laksin frames his critique as but a minor one of style—you exaggerate the threat to America’s existence and national security created by stealth jihad-- in truth, and he of course knows this full well, his criticism is a central antithesis to your book and its purposes.
Stealth jihad works precisely because there are three responses to it—or, more accurately two responses and one non-response. The non-response we can identify quickly. The vast majority of Americans who just don’t care or for whatever reason don’t know anything about the threat. They are either too busy raising a family (hard working) or texting on their cell phones (banality).
The first of the responses to stealth jihad and your book’s warning about it comes from the Elite and the Stealth Jihadists and I need not spell that out here. In a word, attack the messenger typically on ad hominem basis.
The second of the responses is an acceptance of the stealth jihad phenomenon but dismissing it as not an existential threat because it is: (A) Simply the way America assimilates the violent jihad—that is, the way America’s melting pot forces the mujahideen to act western and use courts, finance, etc. and thereby launders the dirty laundry and turns it into a clean, if not a bit stained, western assimilated version of its once foreign and threatening self. By the 2nd or 3rd generation, all is well. Or, (B) It is a problem of assimilation but overstated and America will push back at the right time.
Laksin’s argument is really a bit of both A and B. But if the Laksin argument is true, your book is without point or merit. And, indeed, if the assimilation argument is true in fact then efforts like yours (and mine in the policy-legal worlds) are counterproductive because it creates noise and a bogey when the correct response should be silence and acceptance of a cultural phenomenon oft repeated in our history. Indeed, I have heard the refrain that by making stealth jihad an issue of US-THEM, we are exacerbating the problem and making it more difficult to “assimilate” these stealth mujahideen (and, the argument goes, we are antagonizing all those otherwise assimilated and peaceful Muslims). This is of course the American version of the Jewish response to Nazis, both the original ones and the neo-Nazis in Europe and America. I often heard growing up in the 1960s and early 70s that we should just ignore the neo-Nazi types lest we bring them more attention (and embolden them and otherwise awaken a dormant anti-Semitism in the broader population).
While it would seem odd that Laksin would fall into that category since he works at FrontPageMag, his criticism of your book, properly understood, is a central criticism on its face and so irrational and contrary to fact (there has never been such a hostile immigrant group/movement as the Shariah-faithful or Shariah-sympathetic in the US) that one is hard pressed to understand the motivation.
NB: As an aside, the only similar hostile group of immigrants were the Russian/East European Jewish anarchists and their follow-on Marxist brethren who immigrated here at the turn of the last century through the 1940s. These folks were also both outright revolutionaries and stealth revolutionaries (they used labor-union tactics and university academics as stealth). The difference is that they preached what we can properly call “ideology” since that is what they called it. But ideas are easy to destroy especially if they are beaten in the real world of facts by better ideas. Thus, Marxism failed in the world of ideas as against free markets and representative government and now free markets are failing and we are turning back to socialism and statism. Always in flux because ideas are just that: ideas. Nothing concrete; nothing real. (Don’t get me wrong; this country has in addition to the idea of liberty and representative government strong but vastly weakened institutional biases toward individual freedom and free markets brought to these shores by hard working Christians and memorialized in the original Constitution, but these have been under assault at least since the New Deal and ramped up since the revolutionary 60s.
But that is why I always insist on making the point that Shariah is NOT an ideology because it is not an idea that you can point to and say, “You see, it fails to be the basis of a just society in the real world of facts; ergo change your ideas!” Precisely because Shariah is a faith-based legal-political-religious-cultural institution that need not prove itself on a consistent basis to be accepted. And, because it is predicated upon faith, it is NOT an idea or “belief”. Modern religious men tend to talk of “faith” as “belief” but those two things are opposites. Faith is knowing the truth of something a priori (Gd’s existence and love are examples). With all the good efforts by Aristotle (prime mover), Maimonides (neo-Platonic), St. Thomas Aquinas etc, Gd’s existence and love have hardly been demonstrated logically. They exist within faithful men as an unwavering truth of existence, NOT BELIEF which can come and go with the day and time. Shariah is such a faith but wholly protected by a 1200 year old institutional framework that resists any effort from within or without to undermine its authority. (See here and here for a discussion of Shariah as an institution that protects itself against change.) That is what makes Shariah so dangerous in our time. And, the fact that Mr. Laksin and so many others can simply laugh it off as he does in his book review, makes it exponentially more so.
That is what makes your book invaluable and Laksin’s criticism so devastating.
Robert,
I just received your book yesterday for Christmas and I am looking forward to reading it.
Christopher Hamilton
The Right Opinion, for the Right Wing
A sentence in the conclusion of Laskin's critique was rather baffling:
"... Emboldened by successes abroad and multicultural diffidence at home, Islamists may soon make more radical demands on American society. ..."
May soon -- ? A most bold prediction!
In other news, the sun will come up tomorrow, it will be cold in the winter and hot in the summer, and the sky is blue.
OTOH Laskin does provide us with a concise executive summary of the inertia to be overcome and why our should-be allies are, instead of helping us, tying our hands and leaving the back door wide open. In my efforts elsewhere on the internets, I encounter these same arguments constantly from both the Right and the Left.
Fortunately (?) our jihadi pals will continue to act in predictable ways and will provide fresh arguments to make our case.
About "faith" in the credo-quia-absurdum sense, prior to, and independent of, logic and proof of truth, which is here opposed to "belief" -- here used not as "religious belief" but as "belief" in a set of ideas -- surely the strangest and most worrisome thing about Islam is that, at least within Dar al-Islam, where the government, the clerics, and society all have ways to enforce outward conformity to Islam, among the few who have mentally fought their way free of Islam, there are none who dare to declare it so, so the dissenters silently dissent, and never form a group, never can openly appeal, at least not within that world, to others to step forward.
And while not necessarily accepting Yerushalmi's claim that an "ideology" such as Marxism or for that matter Fascism, can be undone by the truth or untruth of its propositions, a "faith" such as Islam is something else, beyond and immune to such criticism. That isn't quite true; the sites run of, by, and for apostates, such as www.faithfreedom.org, are full of testimonies of those who examined the tenets or "ideas" of Islam and found them wanting.
On the other hand, it is true that unlike those who grow unhappy with, or have experienced the awfulness of, either Soviet Communism or what the Fascists and Nazis imposed, those Muslims who flee Muslim lords of misrule, economic stagnation, moral and intellectual paralysis, very often do not allow themselves to connect that misrule, that stagnation, that paralysis, to Islam itself. A few do, and these are the people who become apostates. But many do not, so they arrive, in the West, often being granted "asylum" and allowed to settle within that West, but never asking themselves, nor being asked by the generous-to-a-tectonic-fault Westerners who offer them that great privilege of settling within the Infidel West -- a West that works so much better and is so much freer, precisely because of the absence of Islam in its history and in its legal and political institutions, and in the mental makeup of its citizens -- as to the reasons for the failures, political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual, of the places they come from, and so they come, fleeing the awfulness of Muslim states, but they do not understand, do not force themselves nor are forced by others to understand, and make the connection, between Islam and the failures of Muslim states and societies.
And so there is no way for Islam to fail. Communism was the God That Failed, and when a sufficient number of people, especially the best, the most thoughtful people (and that included the children of high officials, and military men) in the Soviet Union, saw that Communism had not worked, was in Soviet byt or reality all nonsense and lies, and even on its own terms, that is of economic well-being, was incapable of delivering the economic goods, Communism was seen to fail. But Islam does not "fail." For most Muslims, if a Muslim state is a mess, the only remedy is more and yet more Islam. There is, then, no mechanism within the mental grid that Islam supplies and that Muslim societies enforce, for questioning the rightness of Islam itself. That must come from outside. It must come, in the first place, from Infidels who grasp this, and are willing to demonstrate to Muslims, here and abroad, that this understanding will not be undone. Eventually a mental climate may be created in which the more intelligent and morally aware Muslims have to admit that the Infidel understanding of Islam has a point. But the numbers of those Muslims likely to do this is is very small, and the overall meance of Islam remains too large, and increases as the number of Muslims, with their mosques and madrasas and organizations such as CAIR often funded from abroad, for non-Muslims to let down their guard. The menace of Islam remains, and always will, remain too great for Infidels to allow themselves to believe that somehow, in the great crucible of Western tolerance, Islam can be melted down, or at least its hard edges softened. No, that can't happen, and it won't happen. No civilizational bets should be placed on the politics of Pollyanna.
I am in no way speaking for Robert Spencer here. I am speaking only for myself. I would not presume to speak for Spencer.
FrontPage Magazine is edited by David Horowitz and is published by the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
I am a fairly regular reader of Frontpagemag. I read Robert Spencer, David Hornik and other fine writers on Frontpagemag.
I have been a critic of David Horowitz's approach from time to time. I am a political idealist. In my view, David Horowitz is a political ("Politics is the art of the possible") pragmatist. David Horowitz wrote "The Art of Political War," a pragmatic approach to winning in the political sphere.
I is my view, statesmen, leaders of nations and nations should do the morally right thing politically. More often than not, what is "right" in the political realm is not expedient and thus is rejected as an unproductive, non-winning prescription for defeat. I've been chastised by political pragmatists, 'doing what is morally correct is easy; politics is hard'.
I am not speaking of doing what is politically or morally correct. I am speaking of doing what is morally right. There is a difference.
I wrote David Horowitz several years back. I warned him that Frontpagemag is, generally speaking, a cheerleader for George W. Bush and that THIS WILL come back to bite us. A good conservative publication or website should put forth the critical truth, even to the extent that it hurts our "guy" or "our side." To do otherwise is immoral.
I've read enough of Frontpagemag, Senior Editor Jacob Laksin's material to see he is solidly on the side of George W. Bush; to a fault. Laksin believes Mr. Bush is a great friend and supporter of Israel. He is very wrong. I have written him. He dismisses my criticism.
There is Jamie Glazov, Frontpagemag's Managing Editor. Two interviews Dr. Glazov did stand out as apologetics for Islam and for Mr. Bush's immoral policies visa vis the jihad. One with Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi. The other with Paul Sperry. I apologize for the length of the following. I've cut as much as possible. I think this is critical:
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=AD363EAC-228E-432A-9F15-8702D7765792
FP (Glazov): What do you think of President Bush?
Palazzi: I am extremely disappointed with him. I hoped that -- after Saudi terrorists attacked the U.S. on 9/11 -- this would necessarily cause a radical revision in U.S.-Saudi relations. The first action a U.S. President had to do after such a criminal attack as 9/11 was to immediately outlaw Saudi-controlled institutions inside the U.S. and acknowledge that viewing Saudis as "friends" was a mortal sin representing sixty years of failed U.S. foreign and economic policy.....
....One hears about a U.S. President who allegedly leads a "War on Terror" and promotes the spread of "democracy" and "freedom" in the Islamic world, but the reality shows a U.S. president who -- after a Saudi terror attack against the U.S. -- abides by a Saudi diktat, hides the role of the Saudi regime behind al-Qa'ida and wants Israel, the only democratic state in the Middle East, cut to pieces to facilitate the creation of another dictatorial regime, lead by Arafat deputy Abu Mazen, the terrorist who organized the mass murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.
Theoretically, Bush proclaims his intention to punish terror and to spread democracy, but the Road Map is the exact opposite of all this: it means punishing the victims of terror and rewarding terrorists, compelling democracy to withdraw in order to create a new dictatorial Arab regime. For the U.S. there is only one single trustworthy ally in the entire Middle East: Israel.
Now Bush is punishing America's ally Israel to reward those who heartily supported "our brother Saddam", those who demonstrate by burning Stars and Strips flags and those who call America "the imperialist power controlled by Zionism". In doing so, Bush seriously risks becoming the most anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish President in the history of the U.S.
Let us look at the impending victims of Bush's foreign policy, at the inhabitants of Gush Katif. What is their crime? What did they do to merit deportation from their homes and the theft of their farms and businesses? They live in peace, work hard and provide jobs for thousands of Gaza Arabs. To please the Saudis, Bush wants a Judenrein Gaza, with the Jews of Gush Katif deported from their homes, their houses destroyed and even the remains of their relatives exhumed and buried elsewhere.
Were one to proclaim "Jews, for the only reason of their being Jews, must be deported from New York and forcibly resettled in New Jersey", the whole world would shout and say this is racist deportation, ethnic cleansing, violation of basic human rights, etc. Now, by supporting the infamous anti-Israeli Saudi Plan, Bush is applying the same identical principle: he accepts the idea that Jews, for the only fault of being Jews, must be deported from their homes in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and resettled elsewhere.
Throughout history, Jews were frequently deported from country to country by Romans, Popes, Czars, Nazis, etc. Now, thanks to Bush's policy, Jews will also be deported from Israel, and deported not by anti-Semitic regimes, but by Jews and others wearing Israeli uniforms. It is the norm for Arab dictators to conceive a political project based on ethnic cleansing and deportation of Jews, but it is simply unbelievable that a U.S. President approves such a project and compels Israel to accept it.
I am shocked to realize that a U.S. President supports ethnic cleansing of Jews from parts of the Land of Israel, and that most American Jewish organizational leaders either keep silent or even approve of this deportation plan. With the few praiseworthy exceptions of the Zionist Organization of America (Morton Klein), Americans for a Safe Israel (Herb Zweibon and Helen Freedman), National Council of Young Israel (Pesach Lerner) and a few other groups, most Jewish organizations in the U.S. collaborate with Bush's plans against their own brothers and sisters in Israel.
The implications of the Road Map are staggering: A Jew is not like other human beings, he can be deported from place to place, according to the cynical oil drenched dictates of political opportunism. Deporting Jews and cutting Israel into pieces was the original goal of Arab dictators supported by the Soviet Union.
The U.S. has consistently opposed this racist policy and supported Israel against terrorists who wanted to destroy it. Now Bush is granting those same terrorists a victory: what was not accomplished by terror will be accomplished by the Israeli Defence Forces with the support of the United States. Saudis are able to compel a U.S. President to betray U.S. allies and to force the creation of an entity ("Palestine") controlled by terrorists.
President Bush claims to be a Born Again Christian and also claims to read the Bible everyday. The Bible says that God gave the Land of Israel as a heritage to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and gave the rest of the world as a heritage to other peoples. As confirmed by the Qur'an and Islamic tradition, Abraham himself bequeathed to his descendants from Isaac the Land of Israel, and bequeathed to his descendants from Ishmael other lands, such as the Arabian peninsula.
Now descendants of Ishmael, the Arabs, have a gigantic territory extending from Morocco to Iraq. The descendants of Isaac, the Jews, on the contrary, only have a tiny, narrow strip of land. However, Arab dictators are not satisfied with their huge territory. They want more. They also want the little heritage of the Children of Israel, and resort to terror in order to get it.
U.S. Presidents have always opposed this attempt to steal from the Jewish People what God granted them. Now we have a U.S. President who claims to honor the Bible, and yet wants to give Arab dictators what belongs to the Jewish People. By doing so, Bush is not only rewarding terror, encouraging further terror and showing the world that terror works, but he is also opposing God's will. I pray that the citizens of the U.S. will be spared the full consequences of this anti-Israel, anti-Jewish and anti-God foreign policy.
FP (Glazov): There is indeed a tragedy inherent in the Israelis not being defended the way they should be. And the disengagement from Gaza truly comes with many dangerous risks. But there are several VERY SHREWD (EMPHASIS MINE) strategic reasons involved in this move and they are in Israel’s (?) interests. We shouldn't’t forget that. Bush and Sharon are making wise (?) and calculated steps in their own context. It is more complicated than simply seeing this as a great malicious betrayal. (?) But we’ll have to debate this another time.
Let us turn to your personal interests for a moment. What are some of your favorite books?
http://www.sperryfiles.com/
FP (Jamie Glazov): Tell us what conclusions you have reached from your study of Islam.
Sperry: It is a religion of peace—for Muslims. Everyone else is marked for punishment, as I explain in the chapter "Top 10 Myths of Islam," which your readers should read if they read no other chapter in Infiltration. Their holy book reads like a manual of war, and I've read two translations of it, including all the footnotes and commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, the most widely respected Sunni translator and interpreter. Another big lie we hear told out of Washington is that the Muslim terrorists are "perverting" the teachings of the Quran, as if they haven't read their holy book. No, they've memorized it, and they're getting all this terrible stuff right out of it—the violent jihad, self-immolation, even the beheadings we've seen in Iraq—it's all right there in the Qur'an. It's our leaders in Washington prosecuting this war on Islamic terror who haven't read the Qur'an, violating the first principle of war—know thy enemy and what motives him.
FP(Glazov): Well Mr. Sperry, the bottom line is that WE MUST ALSO BE SHREWD. It would be absurd and self-destructive of us TO WAGE WAR ON THE RELIGION OF ISLAM. THAT MEANS GOING TO WAR WITH 1 BILLION PEOPLE (EMPHASIS MINE),and this is foolish because there are surely many enlightened Muslims who are not interested in terrorism or extremism. I am not saying that we ignore what is in the Qur'an and put our heads in the sand. We need to be honest with ourselves about the violent teachings within Islam and the consequences of those teachings. But there are many Muslims who subordinate those teachings for the larger goal of peace—and those Muslims are our priceless allies.
FP (Jamie Glazov): So let's return to Islam for a moment. Do you believe that there exists a "moderate" Islam?
Sperry: Sure, it's called Sufism, which follows the principles of a special form of Islamic mysticism. Unfortunately that's not the main sect of Islam. The main sect is Sunnism, which follows the fundamentals of the Qur'an, including violent jihad. It's most orthodox strain is Wahhabism, which is really just Islam in practice as prescribed by the Qur'an. Osama bin Laden is a Wahhabist, and Osama bin Laden is a very good Muslim—a model one, in fact, and one of the most devout in the 1400 years of Islam.
FP (Glazov): Well, once again, while we must be honest and REALISTIC (EMPHASIS MINE)about these realities, and we must simultaneously support Muslims who hold out the promise that Islam can be reformed and join the modern, democratic world. So, overall, what can we do about the Islamist threat that you pinpoint?
Let's be clear. These two, Jacob Laskin and Jamie Glazov are Senior Editor and Managing Editor for David Horowitz's Frongpagemagazine. Again I speak only for myself.
These two men are apologists for Islam and apologists for our leaders who are apologists for Islam. This is unbecoming of a prestigious publication dedicated to fighting the global jihad.
My apologies. In the second to last paragraph, I meant to write: Jacob Laksin.
And while not necessarily accepting Yerushalmi's claim that an "ideology" such as Marxism or for that matter Fascism, can be undone by the truth or untruth of its propositions, a "faith" such as Islam is something else, beyond and immune to such criticism. That isn't quite true; the sites run of, by, and for apostates, such as www.faithfreedom.org, are full of testimonies of those who examined the tenets or "ideas" of Islam and found them wanting.
Posted by: Hugh
I think his point is an important one. Unlike ideologies like Communism and Nazism, Islam is a religious faith that embraces a supernatural diety it holds to have created and rule the universe. Muhammad claims to have received a divine-inspired vision or revelation. It seems to me, there is a difference between an ideology and a supernatural religious faith, whether we believe in its authenticity or not. Things that we hold to by faith, often cannot be argued, proven or disproved by reason alone. I embrace things by faith that I cannot prove. Neither can others disprove them. Many Muslims embrace things by faith that appear unreasonable, even dangerous to me.
No offence intended, however, only fools will compare Islam with ideologies such Communism and Nazism for obvious reasons.
The life-time of most known and confrontational ideologies has always been limited to less than 100 yrs. Islam is neither an ideology nor a religion, but a class of its own. It survived over 1000 years long, and now kicking hard. I always think that our Hugh hits it over the head. Islam is a torrent black-hole, if not kicked in the butt it is upbeat about swallowing our way of life and not the other way around.
MusHuntCowboy, I have a small book on my shelf inherited from my late father: "What the Great Religions Believe," by Joseph Gaer.
Wikipedia on-line encyclopedia defines religion as the service and worship of God/s or the supernatural. It is generally expressed through conducts such as prayers, rituals, or other practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality (the cosmos, and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience....."
Gaer make the point that "the dominant part in man's creation and developement of religion is the belief that life has a purpose.
"Man could not confirm it by his senses. He could not prove it by his reason. And that belief that life has a purpose is the beginning and the essense of religion.
"To live in accordance with this belief, men everywhere have established codes of behavior (and clothed them in appropriate rituals and ceremonies) which differ from one another in practice, though they are often similar in theory, particularly in their starting point. And commandments were formulated to keep the believers in harmony with and dedicated to, their basic concepts of life's purpose."
To call a system of worship a religion in the loose sense of the term, does not mean one must embrace or accept its tenets. I'm not sure why people have a difficult time accepting that Islam is a religion by the very definition of the term "religion."
Robert, I got Stealth Jihad for Christmas. I can't wait to read it :)
In what sense is religion not a body of ideas reflecting the social needs of a group--an ideology? What does the distinction between faith, belief and fact have to do with that?
Islam is a torrent black-hole, if not kicked in the butt it is upbeat about swallowing our way of life and not the other way around.
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy
If you read the Hebrew Bible (the "Old Testatament") there were 'religious' practices that were, I am certain, every bit as dangerous as Islam. These were gods the Canaanites, Hitites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites, etc. worshipped. Gods like Molech, Ba'al, Ashtoreth and other abominations. These these gods and the rituals and ceremonies surrounding them were so hideous that Moses wrote:
When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you,
and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.
"Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.
"For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you.
"But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire....
Some Christians believe, the "God of the Old Testament" was a bloody, vengeful God quite unlike the loving and God or grace in the New Testament. The God of the "Old Testament" is a gracious and a merciful God.
Yet if we are to look at the religion of Islam today and the vicious and ruthless culture it produces and inspires -- take Iran and Gaza for instance --perhaps we can begin to understand these commandments in the Hebrew Bible.
This was a great article. However, I would have presumed Islam to be an ideology propped up by plagiarised faith based beliefs and held together in its purest form for the most part with absolute brutal tyranny. Let’s face it; it is a great way to motivate a people to war.
I may have this wrong but I believe basically Islam is at best a false religion. Yes people do pray to a god and do their rituals but so did the followers of Baal. I would have thought the mere fact it fails the golden rule test makes it just as much an abomination as were and are all pagan religions.
My guess, accept the fact you have to take on a billion or more Muslims then take them on with the same ruthlessness that their fundamentalists admire. I believe this is what the God of the Old Testament was advising and is the only real permanent solution.
As an aside, the only similar hostile group of immigrants were the Russian/East European Jewish anarchists and their follow-on Marxist brethren who immigrated here at the turn of the last century through the 1940s. These folks were also both outright revolutionaries and stealth revolutionaries (they used labor-union tactics and university academics as stealth).
....................
I'm reading Sarah Vowell's frequently irritating reflections on Puritan America, "The Wordy Shipmates". At one point, she waxes eloquent on America's supposed irrational fear of the "other".
The examples she cites are the 1903 Anarchist Exclusion Act--which would seem entirely rational as an anarchist had just assassinated the president of the United States--and the 2001 Patriot Act. She notes that each "exposes a people's deepest fears".
Whether such fears are reasonable--i.e., whether they represent an *actual threat*--is not something she chooses to ask.
These are not questions that Jacob Laksin wants to contemplate too closely, either, it would seem. Excellent analysis by David Yerushalmi.
Rule # 1...
There are no moderate muslims. There only jihadis and apostates.
I have yet to read this book but I will wait till it gets in soft cover or from a library. Robert Spencer has been heard on numerous radio shows but the one, with one of the largest night-time audiences is coast to coast am but yet he has not been invited onto that show. I have heard other guests on coast to coast talk about radical Islam. I think it would be important for such a large audience to hear an interview about "Stealth Jihad" and its danger to our freedoms and national security.
I encourage people to join me and contact their producer and urge that they interview Robert. Stealth jihad is a real threat to our nation so we need to do everything to help wake up America, which includes the truly moderate Muslims.
Tom Danheiser
tom@coasttocoastam.com
Producer, Coast to Coast AM
Lisa Lyon
lisa@coasttocoastam.com
Producer, Coast to Coast AM
Contact the found of the show also -
Art Bell
artbell@mindspring.com