I'm looking forward to seeing the faces of the liberal gay employees at the local Barnes and Noble when I reserve my copies.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at August 18, 2006 7:10 PM

Great cover! Can't wait to read the book!

Posted by: freewoman at August 18, 2006 7:12 PM

Robert,

Thank-you for posting what the cover of the new book is like. At least your new book is going to be ground breaking in presenting the truth.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at August 18, 2006 7:12 PM

First impression is I don't like the quote on the book cover...

You should quote muhammad.

And it looks like revivingislam.com doesn't even exist anymore.

Posted by: Todd at August 18, 2006 7:16 PM

Todd:

The publisher really, really likes that quote. It was out of my hands. They thought it illustrated the subtitle -- and it does, quite well.

Thanks for the heads up re RI. I hadn't noticed.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at August 18, 2006 7:23 PM

Disappointing cover.

l. Should be a relevant and terrifying picture of Mo, better yet a picture of him fondling Aisha, too risque, how about one of those Persian or Turkish paintings, like the one where he is riding the burak, (appropriately an animal with the head and breasts of a woman, prolly so he could take a sex break on the way to Uras-Salem.)

2. Also a juicy Muhammad quote would do, like "the rocks and trees say there is a Jew behind me kill him".

Posted by: Nariz at August 18, 2006 7:24 PM

This cover picture is not yet on Amazon.com.

I'd have preferred a Quranic quote, rather than one from revivingislam.com. 'May Allah rip his spine from his back and split his brains into two, and then put them both back, and then do the same thing over and over again' looks more like a quote from a 'Tiny Minority of Extremists®', then a genuine quotation from Mohammed himself.

Incidentally, which spelling is more accepted - Mohammed, or Muhammad, or Muhammed, or Mohammad, or...?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 18, 2006 7:25 PM

Isn't that the same quote on your PIG to Islam?
Can't wait Robert! Time to educate the masses about the child molesting dipwad. Hope you included a few cartoons inside!

Posted by: Siciliano at August 18, 2006 7:33 PM

I'm good for a few copies, I like to hand them out to my friends.

Posted by: Ronin at August 18, 2006 7:35 PM

I love the cover..the TRUTH about MUHAMMAD....I admire your courage Robert...You made a stand...Thank You Again for doing this site.

Posted by: storagemanager at August 18, 2006 7:43 PM

Let me guess ...

"Muhammad said this, Muhammad did that ... and I'm using historical sources like Ibn Ishaq and the Ahadith ... therefore Islam is intolerant and extremist, and that's why there are Muslim terrorists..."

Judging from the style of past books of Spencer, this will be another selective collection of "facts" about the Prophet Muhammad ... with complete disregard for historical context, circumstances and truth.

Murad Hasni

Posted by: murad_hasni at August 18, 2006 7:44 PM

Not that Robert needs me to defend him but this is an easy one.

All of the collections are selective. They are also intolerant and extremist they were written by muslims for muslims.

Btw, you can bet I'll buy enough for my friends and family to enjoy. At least I am tolerant enough to share.

Posted by: Ronin at August 18, 2006 7:49 PM

murad_hasni

That's right. Robert Spencer will show the real Muhammad to the world. The murderous fiend who Muhammadans worship, fight Jihads for and have cartoon riots over

Posted by: dennisw at August 18, 2006 7:50 PM

Murad Hasni,

Actually, this one is just loaded with historical context.

If you believe that Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa'd, and Bukhari are unreliable for information about Muhammad, please notify Yahiya Emerick, who uses them in his CAIR-distributed biography of Muhammad; and the estate of Martin Lings, a convert to Islam who also used them in his own biography; and Maxime Rodinson, who uses them in his biography which is sold in Muslim bookstores, etc. etc. etc.

Have your fun, but I don't whisper a syllable about Muhammad in this book without documenting it from Muslim sources that Muslims themselves use for information about him. Why not just own up to the whole story of what he is supposed to have said and done?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at August 18, 2006 7:51 PM

Congratulations, Robert, I hope this book will be a new milestone in the renaissance of the West marking another step in the evolution of mankind.

Posted by: Al Saheed Al Kuffar at August 18, 2006 7:57 PM

Congratulations, Robert, on your effort -- everyone should read and explore the roots of the evil that Western civilization is facing. Do you not fear a death fatwa similar to the one issued on Salman Rushdie by the ayatollah Khomeini?

Posted by: Kreuzueber Halbmond at August 18, 2006 8:22 PM

The copies of PIG I handed out have gotten quite a bit of reaction from family and friends and continue to circulate among their friends with many a dog-eared page.

This new book will certainly open the eyes of many more. I just pre-ordered multiple copies to make sure that it gets circulation right out the gate.

It is with great anticipation that I look forward to the release of "The Truth about Muhammad"!

Posted by: miira at August 18, 2006 8:28 PM

"The World's most Intolerant Religion"

OMG. This goes straight to my wishlist.The Left's pundits are going to Freak!

Posted by: Gary at August 18, 2006 8:30 PM

Robert-- a few years ago you recited to me the beginning of a poem you were writing for young Infidels (ages 6 through 12), a version of the wondrous tale of the Miraj.

Unfortunately I can't remember more than the first two lines of the main text:

"Listen, my children and you shall get
The midnight ride of Mahomet."

and one line in your Hudibrastic envoi, which abandons the previously-employed ballad meter for the iambic tetrameter --- "Whose Al-Quds this is I think I know" -- a line which, come to think of it, leaves a lot to be desired, and not only in the extra syllable("you know me -- Al") that puts a speed bump in the scansion.

Is this poem included in your book? If so, I'm buying two copies, or even three.

Posted by: Hugh at August 18, 2006 8:38 PM

That subtitle is enough to get some complaints. I will definitely be reading this one, Mr Spencer.

Posted by: abad at August 18, 2006 8:38 PM

Please add "Imperialist" next to "Intolerant" in the title.

Posted by: perpster at August 18, 2006 8:51 PM

This will really set the muslims in a tizzy !! Their precious mohammad exposed for what he is, a cave dwelling savage. muslims must the the dumbest people on the planet. "Hey, Ahmed, I was just taking a nap in the cave and an angel says i'm the last prophet and I need to get everybody to follow islam or kill them. Are you with me ?!!!"

Anyway, good luck with the book and remember, there is no such thing as bad publicity so when the whining begins, it will all be for the good !

Posted by: TooBad at August 18, 2006 8:58 PM

"Judging from the style of past books of Spencer, this will be another selective collection of "facts" about the Prophet Muhammad ... with complete disregard for historical context, circumstances and truth."
Posted by: murad_hasni

Muhammed is uswa hasana, al-insan, al-kamil according to your theology. The Model of Conduct and the Perfect Man for all time and all places. He doesn't get to be exonerated by comparison with jahiliyya, especially a version of jahiliyya culture we all reject on moral grounds and find repugnant. He can't be the Perfect Man/Model of Conduct for all time, and only be held accountable to his "historical context, circumstances...".

Remember Aisha? By merely grasping for "context, circumstances", you admit you reject his conduct as "perfect" (it shouldn't matter if everyone was a pedophile back then). If you deny this (accepting his "perfection"), then you condone his pedophilia.

Which is it?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 18, 2006 9:07 PM

Might Murad Hasni be so generous as to enlighten us as to how the sunnah, as copiously applied to today's Global Jihad by Moslems themselves, is lacking in "context, circumstances and truth"? We all wish that it were not so, but are you suggesting that the accepted accounts of Muhammad's deeds and examples are wrong, or that the terrorist's application of it is? Why attack Spencer's character if it's his illustration of the sunnah that's wrong? Are you just shooting the proverbial messenger? Where's the beef?

Posted by: Domestos at August 18, 2006 9:07 PM

Let me guess ...

"Muhammad said this, Muhammad did that ... and I'm using historical sources like Ibn Ishaq and the Ahadith ... therefore Islam is intolerant and extremist, and that's why there are Muslim terrorists..."

Judging from the style of past books of Spencer, this will be another selective collection of "facts" about the Prophet Muhammad ... with complete disregard for historical context, circumstances and truth.

Murad Hasni

What circumstances can justify murder,robbery,and rape? In what context is pedophilia OK? What part ofkill,kill,kill are we missing the subtle meaning of?The facts of mohamad are that he is more like a wise guy than a prophet? Please blow up soon.

Posted by: 72_goats at August 18, 2006 9:08 PM

Naseem -- records indicate that you've ordered this book for you and several of your friends. Good!

Posted by: champ at August 18, 2006 9:14 PM

naseem can read?

Posted by: Patriot8 at August 18, 2006 9:20 PM

What? No picture of a mad raving lunatic on the cover?

Not one cartoon, nothing to ridicule this mass-murdereing cult-leader with?

I'm sure the facts are all there (as always with Roberts books) but unless there is a bit of Mohammedan "RAGE" over it I fear it will just be sold within the inner circle of 'concerned citizens'...

Or will it hit the mainstream in a big way???

Or is that not intended?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 18, 2006 9:32 PM

Robert:

I can tell simply by looking at the cover that it will be a great book.

Posted by: texan at August 18, 2006 9:33 PM

Robert, I hope it will be translated into Arabic, Farsi and many other languages. Best of luck!

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at August 18, 2006 9:39 PM

You forgot to put PBUH. Just kidding.

Posted by: baraka66 at August 18, 2006 9:43 PM

Kudos to Robert. I admire your courage to stand up and engage in a civilized debate/critique. Good luck to all infidels --myself including --. We are a long way from convincing a bulk of infidels about the dangers posed by Islamic fascism.

Governments and soceity at large are trying to address Islamic fascism through naive assumptions. By viewing terrrorists in isolataion governments today are trying to capture/liquidate them. However terrorists should not be viewed in isolation.

For example, consider the following example. There is a field full of opium plants. It will be peurile to think that by plucking opium fruits you will solve the problem of opium. Instead you need to target all the opium plants a well as people planting the opium plants. In a similar way there is a ideology and social infrastructure behin Islamic fascism.

Unless you remove the ideology and social infrastructure behind Islamic fascism, we will not be able to solve the problem.

Sustained debate/critique by courageous people to Robert hopefully will convince infidels of the problem.

Good luck to us all.

Posted by: Desi at August 18, 2006 9:46 PM

I believe this book is going to have a significant impact. Muslims will provide the biggest reasons for this, unfortunately, by their relentless, escalating terror attacks, threats, and mayhem, and by their predictable reactions to the book. Robert Spencer, as we all know, is quite literally sticking his neck out; pointing out unflattering truths about Muhammad will surely be interpreted by many Muslims as blasphemy. And we all know the penalty for that. I pray Robert stays safe. The frenzied, potentially violent reactions from Muslims will surely be noticed and give the book dangerous, free publicity.

Also, there is something engaging in reporting about personalities and the real lives of people. The Muslim imagination is held hostage by the reality of Muhammad, the real person who spoke for Allah and set divine examples about how to live. And the divine command mentality of Islam requires that one get all these things just right. If an act is right because Allah commands it, and for no other reason, then one must know what the specific commands are. Hence, the endless rules and regulations from 'authorities' who know just what Allah wants in any given circumstances. Forget about reasoning, just get the command straight. Muhammad is the highest authority, the foundation of Islam, that without which Islam is no more. A book that exposes Muhammad for the person he was reported to be, the murderer, polygamist, warrior, pedophile and all, stikes at the heart of Islam.

And for Infidels as well, reading about the life of the person will be far easier and entertaining than reading the Qur'an or the Sunnah, a revolting, boring but necessary chore. And the absurdities and inherent violence of Islam will be easier for Infidels to understand, I think.

"If this is the kind of guy who founded the religion, and believers think he was perfect, no wonder the religion is so screwed up."

This should be easy for even a child to grasp.

Posted by: JTF at August 18, 2006 9:48 PM

What is virtuous about tolerance?

Posted by: Phillip Sellers at August 18, 2006 9:48 PM

Good luck with the book. I usually hate Christmas shopping. This will make it easier. Can it be bought through this site directly as to cut out the 'liberal gay employees at the local Barnes and Noble' from the food chain?

Posted by: limes at August 18, 2006 9:56 PM

Robert, 'is it allowed' to send a few thousand copies of your new book to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, perhaps some to our friends in Iran? I'd also like a copy sent to Karen Huges as well. It would undo all her "good work."

Posted by: biorabbi at August 18, 2006 9:58 PM

OMG. This goes straight to my wishlist.The Left's pundits are going to Freak! Posted by: Gary

You mean like Islam is a religion of peace Coulter, or would that be "damn those Islamophobe" Oreilly, or those extremists are distorting Islam John Heartland Kaisch.. or our Religion of Peace, distorted by Islamo fascists President.

You mean those leftist and pundits Gary?

Meanwhile this quasi leftist internet pundit isn't freaking at all, as I'm a major fan of Mr Spencer and have bought all of his books and books by Serge, Andrew, and more, much more than you will every buy or read..witless one.

Posted by: Nariz at August 18, 2006 10:25 PM

Bohemond_1069, If it is translated into Arabic, Farsi, and maybe Urdu, it will create a firestorm only because these editions are interpretations and non-English speakers will not have the true meaning.

Posted by: Pelayo at August 18, 2006 10:29 PM

l love the fall colours, great for October release.
actually your missing a camel in the picture, because if they had no oil, muslims would still be sleeping with them, or worse.
btw, with the killer the child "Jonbonet", word is coming out this killer was fantazing about her since she was very young, and people rightly so are repulsed by hearing what this killer wrote on the internet to this professor in Colorado. well if you take one step back, compare this to Mohuammud fantazing and taking a very young child as Aisha, when she was nine years old, how fitting this book can reveal the same repulsive response readers will get when learning about this "holy man" of islam. how can anyone in their right mind follow that cult of death. l guess l will be ordering one at my local Chapters, and make sure l go to the till with a muslim at the cashiers. cant wait to read this one!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at August 18, 2006 10:31 PM

At different times, I introduced the PIG guide to each of 3 men. The first said, "Glanced at it; looked like right-wing hysteria." The second said, "No time." (He believes that the enemy is fundamentalism -- any fundamentalism). The third said, "I don't believe it would teach me anything significant." (He believes that the problem in Islam came late and that in the mists of history and at the core of Islam, there is good.)

And then I gave it to a woman, who bought her own copy; and to another woman. We'll see if there's a gender difference. Perhaps folks have their own experience; but it seems to me that many folks don't want this message, independent of whether it is true.

I 'm glad that the new book is not a "politically incorrect guide," which sounded too confrontational to a number of people.

Posted by: StillBreathing at August 18, 2006 10:34 PM

Follow up:

"What is virtuous about tolerance?"

A. There must be something

B. Nothing

Posted by: Phillip Sellers at August 18, 2006 10:36 PM

Robert,

One recommendation from another arm-chair quarterback. I would avoid using "...World's Most "INTOLERANT" religion."

Rather that "intolerant," I would recommend "controversial." As true and utterly accurate as you and I know the word "intolerant" is, it may have a negative effect on fence-sitters, who are curious and might otherwise be attracted to your book. The skeptics may read "intolerant" and say, "Oh right, this guy's got an agenda." This book MUST appeal to the center, as well as your audience and those of us who need no convincing. This work is to important to appeal just to "the audience for that sort of thing."

The truth speaks for itself. There is no need to try TOO hard. This may be a case of "less is more." We will all buy your book, my friend; we know who you are. Those who are just walking past the bookstand do not and the cover needs to draw them in as well.

I urge you to ask Regnery to reconsider and take a more sublime approach.

All that said. I cannot wait. I buying a dozen copies for my entire team.

Posted by: Knight4AO at August 18, 2006 10:40 PM

I was thinking (and got a headache) about the Islamic way of doing things. Produce an Arabic version that says exactly what the Muslims want to hear. In other words write an Arabic version full of lies and BS. It will make THEM happy and George Bush will award Mr. Spencer the Medal of Freedom.

Posted by: Pelayo at August 18, 2006 10:42 PM

"Robert, 'is it allowed' to send a few thousand copies of your new book to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, perhaps some to our friends in Iran? I'd also like a copy sent to Karen Huges as well. It would undo all her "good work."

Posted by: biorabbi "

If you're really wanting to send that many I can get you an address where you can send books to our soldiers in the sandpits.

Posted by: Anti-Jihad-Crusader at August 18, 2006 10:48 PM

Murad Hasni

Lets keep this simple and contemporary. What sort of historical context do we need to evaluate the following facts. The followers of the sect of islam are at war worldwide with their neighbors who follow other religions and with their neighbors who don't concur with their particular slant on islam. Please entertain us with your justification for these facts.

Posted by: pismopal at August 18, 2006 10:51 PM

"What is virtuous about tolerance?"

If tolerance means uncritical acceptance of belief or action then it is a foolish vice,not any virtue.

Posted by: 72_goats at August 18, 2006 10:55 PM

http://www.cnn.com/video/partners/clickability/index.html?url=/video/world/2006/08/18/rivers.uk.preacher.profile.cnn

My blood boils as i listened to it.

Posted by: sutasuta at August 18, 2006 11:03 PM

Robert -- the cover is missing horns, a tail, and a pitchfork.

Posted by: champ at August 18, 2006 11:11 PM

I second Knight4AO's post above.

If its not too late, I would stronlgly suggest the change from "intolerant" to "controversial". This will certainly lead to higher sales and wider acceptance.

Looking forward to it.

Posted by: mr._f at August 18, 2006 11:12 PM

Inversely, therefore, intolerance may be virtuous for it cannot be both viceful and virtuous.

Posted by: Phillip Sellers at August 18, 2006 11:14 PM

Yeah Patriot8 -- and she can spell too!

Posted by: champ at August 18, 2006 11:15 PM

"Inversely, therefore, intolerance may be virtuous for it cannot be both viceful and virtuous."

Yes indeed.As my body is intolerant of disease,this is a virtue.When we are intolerant of crime,that again is a virtue.The intolerance of evil is the greatest of virtues.

Posted by: 72_goats at August 18, 2006 11:20 PM

I happen, just happen, to be liberal. I also happen, just happen (no big point being made here) to be gay. I happen, also, (again, no big point being made here) to be pretty much left-wing (I probably look like a rabid commie to most American posters but I'm pretty much main stream for most Europeans).

But here's the rub. Gay, liberal, left of centre, I am not a fool. I can see quite plainly that Robert's point of view is quite correct and I, too, will be buying his book (excuse the awkward split infinite there, please). I can't be the only gay person on this site. I can't be the only liberal on this site. I can't be the only left-leaning person on this site. So why, oh why, do you all seek to castigate people like me. We should be allies on this site fighting the fight against the jihad being waged against us. Gratuitous insults simply scare off people like me - well, not me, actually, because I've posted here for long enough to know that most of you are very nice people by the sound of it and I've got a thick skin.

However, none of that is to the point. If we are going to win this war then we need to reserve our differences for other fora - not scare away those who should be allies - those who have at least as much to lose as you do. Various employees of various concerns may indeed be gay and liberal but I fail to see the relevance to the fight against the jihad.

'Gay' equates to 'supporter-of-mohammedanism' - well, that is regrettably often true, but whose fault is that when all you can do is scare them away from reading this site. 'Liberal' equates to 'supporter-of-mohammedanism' - well, that is regrettably, also, often true, but none of you exactly try to welcome the 'liberals' (whoever they may be) to this site and couch your, quite correct, interpretation of jihad in terms that they (we?) can understand. Often, you go out of the way to offer insults and denigrations on quite unrelated matters.

Robert's PIG Islam and the Crusades, and his new book, will do more to convince people about the dangers of islam than most of you on this site, who display your prejudices and your nastiness towards people who are in any way different from the norm, on a daily basis, have ever done.

Robert puts himself out there 365/24/7 which is more than can be said for the huge majority of people who post here and hide behind their carefully constructed electronic anonymity - and often use that anonymity to take nasty little sideswipes at anybody else they dislike - I've done the same, regrettably, for which I apologise unreservedly and I'll try, but probably fail, not to do it again. (Dash it, another cumbersome split infinitive.)

I'm gay, I'm liberal, I'm left of centre. Do you want me to keep on being the voice of reason vis-a-vis islam in each of those three communities or do I, and, I must presume, others here, offend you so much that you just want us to f**k off. Since when was the fight against islam a white, heterosexual, right-wing fight exclusively? Since when could you afford to reject all the allies you could get?

Let me paraphrase and bastardise Niemoller's great lines:

When the muslims came for the gays,
I remained silent;
I was not gay.

When they locked up the liberals,
I remained silent;
I was not a liberal.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

If that's the way you want it, then so be it.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 18, 2006 11:28 PM

Therefore, it is agreed that intolerance may be a virtue and something that is most intolerant of all may be most virtuous of all.

Posted by: Phillip Sellers at August 18, 2006 11:28 PM

Social tolerance is the foundation of Western life. That is what we're fighting here. It has become reckless, and intoxicating. Westerners are high on it to the point where it threatens our existence. I think the title is great, and will slap the over tolerant awake. You might want to consider this version though: "Creator of the Religion of Intolerance."

Posted by: ofcourse at August 18, 2006 11:35 PM

Phillip Sellers:

You're right, of course. You're just forgetting one thing: the time, the place, the zeitgeist into which this book is launched.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at August 18, 2006 11:36 PM

A general note to all with suggestions to change the title, subtitle, and/or cover:

Thank you, but it's too late. The book is all set to go to press and no more changes can be made.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at August 18, 2006 11:39 PM

72_goats/

"The intolerance of evil is the greatest of virtues"

Tell me, who gets to define what is evil - you?

Ah, I thought so, Phillip Sellers has the right of it.

Hmmmmm.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 18, 2006 11:40 PM

Let me guess ... "Muhammad said this, Muhammad did that ... and I'm using historical sources like Ibn Ishaq and the Ahadith ... therefore Islam is intolerant and extremist, and that's why there are Muslim terrorists..." Judging from the style of past books of Spencer, this will be another selective collection of "facts" about the Prophet Muhammad ... with complete disregard for historical context, circumstances and truth. Murad Hasni

Murad,

Robert predicted precisely the type of response you've given (see his post a few weeks back, for example).

The historical context only makes Mohammad and Islam look worse. After all, as the Muslinm sources tell us, Mohammad set up that context, with the help of his band of murderous thugs, in pursuing his short term goals (wealth, weapons, land, women, adulation, revenge, etc.) and in pursuit of his long-term goal (spreading Islamic rule throughout the Arabian Peninsula, and eventually, throughout the whole world).

Posted by: Archimedes at August 18, 2006 11:41 PM

"Therefore, it is agreed that intolerance may be a virtue and something that is most intolerant of all may be most virtuous of all."

No I dont think we are agreed on anything.Tolerant and intolerant are only abstractions when taken out of context.Whether a vice or virtue depends on what the subject is.I thought that was clear from my examples.So where are you headed? What do you want us to be tolerant of? What is "something that is most intolerant of all"? You could be more verbose if you choose.Maybe it would make your point more clear.

Posted by: 72_goats at August 18, 2006 11:45 PM

Excellent cover. I think it is symbolic. Light dawning upon the infidels.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at August 18, 2006 11:45 PM

Thank you, Robert. Well put. I do understand and respect your work. Best of luck with the book. I do believe, however, that some in the the Islamic community will easily read "intolerant" as a quality. But, wisely, you are not writing for an Islamic audience.

Phil

Posted by: Phillip Sellers at August 18, 2006 11:51 PM

"Tell me, who gets to define what is evil - you?"

Ah yes "God is dead,all is permitted".So there is no evil in the world? Human nature decides what evil is.For a sane person,even one who commits barberous acts on others does not want the same acts commited on them.You know,those cowardly murders who run and hide? Would you like some boiling water poured over your head? No? Should I be punished for doing it? Moral relativists cant walk the talk they talk.

Posted by: 72_goats at August 18, 2006 11:58 PM

And whilst I am on my high horse let me just remind you, all you Americans, of the words of Samuel Francis Smith - words you should know by heart, words that should be engraven upon your soul, your very being:

My country, 'tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing:
Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims' pride,
From every mountain-side
Let freedom ring.
(Amerika [sic], 1831)

'Let freedom ring'. Not toll for the select one or two but ring for everyone. Not toll the tailors for freeper right wing nonsense alone but ring for freeper right wing nonsense and leftie liberal stupidity at one and the same time. Not toll the passing bell for limited freedom for just a few but ring out a grandsire triple for the maximum freedom for everybody. Not ring a muffled peal whilst the intolerant barbarian horde takes over our society but ring the changes triumphant and tolerant over all our lands.

Dominic.

P.S.
If you don't understand my bell-ringing terms go to

http://www.nagcr.org/pamphlet.html

which is the American site. British people ought to understand them but if not go to

http://www.cccbr.org.uk/ringing/ringing.php

D.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 19, 2006 12:03 AM

72_goats wrote:

"You could be more verbose if you choose.Maybe it would make your point more clear."

Actually, I think my point could not have been made clearer in any way. I may be accused of being a polemic, but there is plenty of verbosity to go around these days and I've never been one to like adding to it. I am methodical and logical. You just experienced a debate. No shame in losing nor glory in winning.

Good for the mind. Your argument was sound.

Posted by: Phillip Sellers at August 19, 2006 12:06 AM

I must agree with the comments earlier from the self-described gay liberal (Dominic?). I am not gay but certainly not anti-gay, and I also consider myself liberal on most social and even some foreign policy issues (NOT when it comes to dealing with terrorism, however). He stated far more eloquently what I have often felt reading many of the anti-liberal comments by other JW posters. Although I, too, get extremely frustrated by my liberal friends when I try to tell them the truth about Islam, I don't blame them for being turned off when they visit JW on my recommendation and read such comments. I feel similarly about the occasional comments that we are about to see Jesus' imminent return in the Middle East, etc. Although I intend no disrespect to any other posters' political or religious beliefs, I wish more of them would bear in mind that certain types of comments about "liberals," "gays," etc., or those which seem to be prostelyzing for conservative Christianity (as opposed to merely stating that one is a Christian or pointing out the contrast btween Christian and Muslim teachings), are going to alienate many of the people Mr. Spencer most needs to reach. No need to preach to the choir!

Posted by: kaffirchick at August 19, 2006 12:16 AM

"I can't be the only left-leaning person on this site. So why, oh why, do you all seek to castigate people like me."

Nobody seems to understand the importance of degrees anymore. There are far more Left-leaning people than Right-leaning people who are on the wrong side of this issue. Evidently, there is something about Leftism that makes it more susceptible to irrationality and anti-Western sentiments in general.

You and your few fellow Leftists who do get it are the exception to the rule.

Posted by: remote_control at August 19, 2006 12:21 AM

72_goats/

'Moral relativism'. What does that mean, precisely? In your terms, of course, if you would be so kind as to explain - if you can - your cryptic utterances.

"Ah yes "God is dead,all is permitted".

Did I say that. No, I think not. You just wish that I had said that. What is permitted is freedom. Strangely, what is often denied is freedom, also; kind of depends where you stand, doesn't it. And there, that's real relativism. Whether it's moral or not...?

Moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical, personal or religious circumstances. Knowing that is what makes islam so difficult to fight because there is always the danger that we might throw the freedom of our societies away by introducing laws to curb the absolutist creed of mohammedanism - we could both win and lose at the same time. That, of course, is what is happening in the UK at the moment with our government introducing an Act which would allow them to make law without recourse to parliament and without telling us (we, the people) what law they have just made and what penalties transgression of the said law would, or might, carry - but that's for a different site, because this is jihadwatch not freedomwatch.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 19, 2006 12:23 AM

Dominic:

"...but that's for a different site..."

Truest words yet spoken in this exchange.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at August 19, 2006 12:29 AM

I'm gay, I'm liberal, I'm left of centre. Do you want me to keep on being the voice of reason vis-a-vis islam in each of those three communities or do I, and, I must presume, others here, offend you so much that you just want us to f**k off. Since when was the fight against islam a white, heterosexual, right-wing fight exclusively? Since when could you afford to reject all the allies you could get? Posted by Dominic

Dominic, we love you and we want more of you, but you must know that you are an anomaly, or should I say, a rarity. Let's call you "one in a million" and leave it at that, unless you know something I don't and if that's the case, please share. I never make rash comments about gay liberals, but I do bash liberals all the time, with gusto and self-righteous indignation. I wish every left-of-center individual, straight or gay, would join our campaign to understand and disseminate the truth about Islam, but that's not likely. As I said, you are a rarity, but please continue "the voice of reason."

Don't be angry or offended. We need and appreciate you. I cannot explain why otherwise brilliant minds fail to recognize the diabolical nature of islam, but it does seem to be an inherent trait in many who call themselves liberals. But political correctness and cultural Marxism are now epidemic, infecting the entire political spectrum from far left to far right. I don't really know which are worse, delusional muliticulturalists or sleazy liars.

Posted by: Susanp at August 19, 2006 12:31 AM

It doesn't matter what's on the cover. It doesn't matter if it makes the NYT bestseller list. It doesn't matter if the media choose to ignore, crucify, or praise this book. What counts is that it has been written based on primary source documents by an author of unimpeachable credentials. Historians and those who have studied history can attest to the primacy of first-person accounts and primary source documentation, dating back through the centuries. Since the book is not based on opinion, hearsay, hype, drama, or the quasi-fiction of Clancy and Grisham, it cannot be banished to the ash heap of literary history by glib-tongued activists of the Muslim and fifth column persuasions. Mr. Spencer, a fellow Tarheel, treats me, and other curious minds, to the beauty of contemporary enlightment. Without his diligent efforts and careful study the non-Islamic world would sorely be lacking for a hero of the written word. Heaven knows it isn't coming from Foggy Bottom or Langley. Thank you Mr. Spencer.

Posted by: bcore1973 at August 19, 2006 12:31 AM

Robert/

I took to heart some of your earlier strictures on my digressions from the issue to hand! These days I try to stay on topic - albeit, sometimes I fail - and trespass upon your tolerance! Thank-you for often being so tolerant.

May I offer you my congratulations on getting 'The Truth about Muhammad' to press. I have some small experience, very, very small, of what you must have gone through as I have recently contributed a mere two short (very) chapters to an oeuvre about European Armorial Bearings and that gave me headaches enough. What you must have gone through to get an entire tome to press just leaves me feeling that I want to run for the hills. Needless to say I will be buying a copy.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 19, 2006 12:44 AM

I'm male, not gay and not liberal; I own more than my fair share of firearms. I do, however, own more than fifteen pairs of shoes.

I have been saying off and on that we are all in this together, Jews, Christians, atheists, anamists, Hindus, Buddhists, Intellectuals, Rednecks, Shintoists, rich, poor, and everyone else except Muslim. Some Muslim sects are also at risk. Is Naseem around?

Some of us qualify for dhimmitude, some of us will be killed because we are gay, athiests or not of "The Book." It is not the time to be picky about who our allies are. After this is all over, in about seventy five years, our great-grandchildren can re-invent the old prejudices.

Posted by: Pelayo at August 19, 2006 12:45 AM

What is moral relativism? Here is your answer:

"Moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical, personal or religious circumstances."

You know,cryptic utterances.I think you are confuseing mores with morals.

Hey,under what social,culteral,historical,personal or religious circumstances is sawing off someones head for not bowing down and banging your head into the sand while worshiping the devil considered virtuous? I think we all know the answer to that.Do you want your boiling water now?

And thanks for telling me what I wish for.If wishes were horses we could all take a ride.And if wishes were pigs Islam would fly to the moon and leave us alone.

But this is Roberts site and of course he is right.The discussion doesnt belong here.So I'm done with you.Good night.

Posted by: 72_goats at August 19, 2006 12:47 AM

As Ali Sina asserted long ago, the entire ediface of Islam rests on the shoulders of Muhammad. That's why this book may turn out to be Robert's definitive work.

While the intolerance that fills the Quran can also be found in abundance in the Old Testament, the personality and ethos of Muhammad - as depicted in the Hadith - stand in stark and poignant contrast to that of Jesus in the gospel...something that can't and won't be lost on believing Christians.

I'm so glad you have apparently emphasized the Ahadith, which were so scarce in 'Islam Unvieled.' The portrait they paint is inescapable.

Best of luck Robert. Looking foward to Oct 9 and hoping the book makes a real splash.

Posted by: Cornelius at August 19, 2006 12:55 AM

I'm a young musician in a rock band and I review Mr. Spencers site on an almost daily basis. We(Citizens of the nations) are truly facing down an ideology which seeks to establish itself as supreme. Islam is a virus that infects and distorts the human mind. Law resulting from any superstitious belief in the unknown cannot be allowed to govern the affairs of this world. I seriously doubt that "god", pick your definition, would find such sloppy devotion pleasing. I love touring the nation, but I will not hesitate to leave it to fight for my country and way of life. I'm a damn good shot too. -M

Posted by: subfrequency at August 19, 2006 12:57 AM

"Do you want me to keep on being the voice of reason vis-a-vis islam in each of those three communities or do I, and, I must presume, others here, offend you so much that you just want us to f**k off."
Posted by Dominic

Speaking as a Christian, conservative, right-wing, hetero:

By all means, stay, please.

I've certainly felt I had to defend my faith here, and have occasionally regretted being acerbic myself. Hugh ripped me a new one just yesterday for a shallow response. Don't take things too personally here, but do expect if you press a "hot button", you may get a "hot" response. We've all got to learn to work together (me included).

My worst complaint with those from the "left" is that I know so many that say they support the right of free speech (or any other "right"), but that can't recognize that the someone with a real plan of ending their speech is a real ideological enemy and potentially a real physical enemy. You don't seem to be of this variety.

Have you read "While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within", by Bruce Bawer. He's gay. Steve Emerson says of his book, “Bruce Bawer has produced a book that is at once riveting, disturbing, fascinating, chilling, and shocking. It is required reading for anyone who wants to understand how militant Islam has insinuated itself into the heart of the West.” Inclusive enough for you?

If you don't refer to me as a "breeder", I won't call you anything unsavory either, we'll get along fine, and we can both try to help figure out how to keep Islam from caving a wall in on you and beheading me.

Speaking of books, I've already ordered my copy of Robert's new book, plan to buy more for gifts. Come on guys, this needs to be on the best seller list before the release date. Stock up!! Straights, gays, Christians, Jews, Atheists, liberals, conservatives UNITE!! BUY! BUY! BUY!

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 19, 2006 1:01 AM

72_goats/

Let me quote the tag line of one of the other posters her - I'm sorry, I can't remember who - 'freedom, the only choice at any price' or something very similar. So my defence of freedom is mere moral relativism. Well, that serves only to indicate your own intellectual bankruptcy. Freedom is what we are fighting for, man. Freedom is why we listen to Robert and Hugh and read them here. Freedom is what they expound. Freedom, probably, regrettably, from your point of view, is freedom for everybody who wants and needs it - and it is, and will remain, indivisible.

Dash it, I now have to quote myself from a posting above "...nasty little sideswipes at anybody else they dislike - I've done the same, regrettably, for which I apologise unreservedly and I'll try, but probably fail, not to do it again...". I have just failed; mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Sometimes I hate myself.

Susanp/

Thank-you for your support. I don't think that I am a rarity - certainly not one in a million. I think that this site can intimidate liberals into keeping quiet. At least one of my brothers, to my certain knowledge, posts here as does my boss (no names, no pack drill for that would be wrong of me in the circumstances) but still, I take your point, we may be rare animals.

Thank-you all for the discussion and I hope your book sells very well, Robert. I must to bed now for I have to work tomorrow afternoon and it is already very late (or early) here in the UK. God bless you all.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 19, 2006 1:14 AM

Pelayo/

FIFTEEN! Gasp! But thank-you for the rest of your comment.

Concerned Citizen/

You've got a deal. I've read Bawer. Good, isn't it?

I've got to get some shut-eye. Support Robert and may Angels watch over you all.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 19, 2006 1:22 AM

Dominic,

Kafir Nonbeliever is gay, and so is Calum. Nariz is liberal and so is KJ.

Plus of course, so are many other lurkers.

Please keep on coming here.

Posted by: Voltaire at August 19, 2006 1:25 AM

What does ones "sexual orientation" have to do with anything discussed on JW -- huh? So what, you're gay. Guess what, I'm not gay. See, no one cares.

Posted by: champ at August 19, 2006 2:12 AM

Dominic,

It's GREAT that you're here. I'm a pro-gay feminist, generally leftish (whatever that means these days) and with many gay friends. I've been talking to them about islam, and although it's not a big issue in NZ, they do see that islam is very intolerant and not good for gay people, women or anyone who wants a decent western life.

The anti-gay comments on this site are annoying, but that's all the more reason for you and me and SusanP and others like us to be here: to show anyone reading that concern about islam is wide-spread and growing.

When I read the Barnes and Noble employee comment I thought 'well good, if they are gay they might read the book and join our ranks!'.

Please don't leave because of such comments. Just keep adding your voice and gay people finding this site will feel more welcome.

Posted by: Lili at August 19, 2006 2:18 AM

Champ: Dominic was commenting on an anti-gay comment made. It's extremely important that people disagreeing with such comments aren't immediately put off this site.

Dominic,

It's GREAT that you're here. I'm a pro-gay feminist, generally leftish (whatever that means these days) and with many gay friends. I've been talking to them about islam, and although it's not a big issue in NZ, they do see that islam is very intolerant and not good for gay people, women or anyone who wants a decent western life.

The anti-gay comments on this site are annoying, but that's all the more reason for you and me and SusanP and others like us to be here: to show anyone reading that concern about islam is wide-spread and growing.

When I read the Barnes and Noble employee comment I thought 'well good, if they are gay they might read the book and join our ranks!'.

Please don't leave because of such comments. Just keep adding your voice and gay people finding this site will feel more welcome.

Posted by: Lili at August 19, 2006 2:20 AM

I am excited to read this book.

" Founder of the most intolerant religion " will grab people's attention as they peruse the shelves of any bookstore.

It may also cause some controversy.

I am glad to see the words TRUTH and MUHAMMAD in boldface red.

Red is the color of blood.

Islam was advanced through Muhammad, a false prophet, whose war like ways has left a permanent bloody stain on the religious face of the world.

Posted by: Johnathan at August 19, 2006 2:41 AM

Hey Champ,

Sexual orientation is relevant. The hadith are quite clear about what to do with gay people:

If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done. (Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4447)

Posted by: kamala at August 19, 2006 2:41 AM

Are you saying that he was offended by the first post? Good grief, if I had a nickle for everything that offended me on JW, I would be a wealthy woman.

Lili, haven't you noticed all of the nasty things that are said about Christians on this forum? And any time a Christian speaks up and defends their faith they get shot down. Do you defend Christians too? Maybe you do -- please correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted by: champ at August 19, 2006 2:49 AM

Bohemond_1069, If it is translated into Arabic, Farsi, and maybe Urdu, it will create a firestorm only because these editions are interpretations and non-English speakers will not have the true meaning. Posted by: Pelayo

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 19, 2006 2:53 AM

kamala -- you're missing the point -- period.

Posted by: champ at August 19, 2006 3:01 AM

Some of us qualify for dhimmitude, some of us will be killed because we are gay, athiests or not of "The Book." It is not the time to be picky about who our allies are. After this is all over, in about seventy five years, our great-grandchildren can re-invent the old prejudices.
Posted by: Pelayo on August 19, 2006 12:45 AM
-------------------------------------------------

Pelayu, Excellent post!

Posted by: Razdan at August 19, 2006 3:19 AM

Dominic, Glad you are with us. The Lib bashing you speak of comes from the fact that, in this country,We are very much afraid that the Liberals will get us all killed or,at the very least, make us all Dhimmis.They do their best to undermine everything our President tries to do to protect us. Not that he's perfect, mind you, far from it. But he is the only one in the past 30 years who has done ANYTHING to respond to these lunatics. A liberal judge in Michigan ruled the NSA Terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional, the ultra liberal NY Times outed the program to track their money transfers,Liberal politicians make daily statements that we need to cut and run and that traitorous Howard Dean goes on TV and says the war CANNOT be won. Our enemies see this and must be laughing their ass off. If they regain power I don't see how we will survive.

Posted by: TEXROCK at August 19, 2006 3:54 AM

Congratulations Robert.

Could you tell us how your previous books did in different regions of the world?

Posted by: kafir citizen at August 19, 2006 4:39 AM

Shades of grey do matter. Though I've become more anti-islamist since I've become more informed about it. Just keep stating facts, nobody needs to subscribe to any unproven ideologies, including Dominic.

Posted by: Lili at August 19, 2006 5:35 AM

My perfectly polite answer to Champ re defending Christians has disappeared. There's so much of that lately, is the site under attack??

I said let's make a deal Champ: if you see anti-gay comments and nobody writes a defence, you come forward, and I'll do the same for Christians.

It's all about making a wide range of people welcome here.

Posted by: Lili at August 19, 2006 5:38 AM

Well done Robert. Would it be considered bad form to put this book next to the koran next time I'm in Borders?

Posted by: Celsius at August 19, 2006 6:44 AM

Well done Robert. I've already ordered the book and will encourage friends to read it (not an easy task I'm afaid). It is very brave of you to put this out.

Make sure you employ some good bodyguards!!

Posted by: johndoe at August 19, 2006 7:37 AM

Getting the debate over religious/moral supremacy into the public arena is a good and worthy endeavor. That is why I like Robert Spencer's work.

Next to Greco/Roman polytheism, Islam's absolutism appears to be the most morally liberal belief system ever seen. Its tolerance of warfare, murder, pedophilia, divorce, rape, suicide and neglect of human rights among others is staggering compared to Judeo/Christian values and entirely foreign to Bhuddisim's disciplined beliefs.

Islam may, in fact, be "The World's Most Tolerant Religion"

Now THERE is something Islamic apologists do not want to hear.

Just a thought.

Posted by: Phillip Sellers at August 19, 2006 7:44 AM

I have only one question for Robert and I believe
that a good percentage of the members would be curious to see your answer. I'll warn you that it puts you on the spot. I'm going to paraphrase you in the set-up. If you spent your life studying women, having a fasination with women early on in your life carried over to today, basically, if you spent as much time researching women as you have Islam, would you be able to generalize what it means to be a woman, and be able to zero in on a gender-niche to the degree that you could honestly write a book that sums up militant feminism?

Posted by: W.Tresane at August 19, 2006 8:49 AM

Tresane:

Generalizations can be useful, but I try to avoid them: the field I work in is so controversial, I tend to stick to specific statements that are clearly verifiable from the Islamic sources. The accuracy of those statements can thus be independently verified by any person of good will. So it is in this book.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at August 19, 2006 8:53 AM

Nariz~ Once again, you confuse yourself (and pundits like you) for the masses.

When I speak of liberal pundits, I am referring to Christian bashers the likes of you.

People like KJ and Dominic are far better.

Let's get this book widely read, people!

Posted by: Gary at August 19, 2006 9:02 AM

Thank you for your prompt reply. Let's toss generalizations out the window. If I'm the mother of militant feminism, and during the course of my life I was raped by strangers, molested by family members, burried three husbands, had two miscarrages and a still birth, growing up as a black, hadicapped revolutionary from a ghetto on the moon, could you re-esemble my life from 1400 year old sources and then present it to the world as "The Truth about Briannashawnee, Founder of the Universe's Most Unforgiving Movement"? I think this question sums up my previous question and I'm sure that you can see the direction I'm going as "devil's advocate." Obviously you have more in common with the subject of this book then with fictional Briannashawnee, but the walk of life between you and either case might as well be equal. In both cases, I percieve Robert Spencer as living in a different world from the subject. Part B of your response would basically qualify your expertise after centuries(600 AD- present), from a distance(the West- Mecca) and so on. I promise no more questions. Thank you again for your time.

Posted by: W.Tresane at August 19, 2006 9:20 AM

murad_hasni . . .

with complete disregard for historical context

No, murad_hasni, not 'context' but RoP pretext -

As current events demonstrate, the religion of perpetual victimhood demands control of historical perception.

Posted by: miira at August 19, 2006 9:31 AM

My problem with gays and feminists, being the liberals that they are, is that they, as a social community, typically refrain from defending western culture, preferring to disparage it as being phallo-, causasion-, or hetero-centric, and as such, their natural political enemy. They champion multi-culturalism and moral relativism, the two main swords that islam is using on the West right now to fight us, and so they champion the "rights" of minorities, even if those minorities are waging a war on us. They are from the left, often the far left. The left, by default, always supports internal enemies of the state as a matter of domestic policy.

When gays and feminists take a public stand on issues like the war on terror, profiling, police surveillance, etc., it is invariably to criticize the US, criticise the West in general, and to ideologically support our enemies. The very fact that George Bush is a born-again Christian, makes them recoil in disgust, as a group, and therefore find some convoluted common ground with his enemies.

With a few exceptions of some people here, who feel they have a vested personal interest in fighting jihad, because they are gay or feminists, these groups are left of center, and as such, are in ideological cohorts with Islam - as strange bedfellows as that makes. There is no question that the Left is squarely in the corner of the jihadists. And gays and feminists are two pillars of the political Left.

Posted by: August22 at August 19, 2006 9:31 AM

Hey Folks!
This Liberal loves Jihad and Dhimmi watch.

I find the truth here not right or left wing propaganda.
I own Robert Spencer's book and intend to buy the new one when it is available.
Get over the stupid partisanship, look for truth

Posted by: TOM at August 19, 2006 10:04 AM

Folks, we have got to put our differences aside so we can confront the same enemy we are all facing.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at August 19, 2006 10:10 AM

remember folks - under Islam there wont be a left or right. there will be just Islam.

stay focussed folks.
over here in England , there are people on the right who are as just as misguided about Islam as there are on the left. and remember that Tony Blair - who is starting, finally , to "get it" - is actually a socialist.

Another European who "gets it" ,is Joska Fischer.
yes - THAT anti-war leftist Joschka Fischer...

read this, by right wing bloger Stephen Pollard:

http://www.stephenpollard.net/002744.html

so, dont discount that "leftist pinko gay" person just yet. He could be your biggest ally.
we're all in this together folks.

Posted by: archduke at August 19, 2006 10:51 AM

I am sure this will be another clear, well written book, using simple and direct language (versus the other contributor's style I see on this site) that I respect. If the original texts are used as sources as well as in Why I Am Not A Muslim it will be a welcome addition to my book collection on the subject.

Posted by: amana39 at August 19, 2006 11:08 AM

Tresane,

What you're missing is why your fictional Briannashwanee exists in the circumstances she does. It's not an accident.

Robert is engaged in an exposition of the theology that compells certain Muslims to behave the way they do TODAY. He's establishes the indisputable link between the Islam of today and the Islam of the 7th century; between the behavior of the terrorists and the behavior of the Prophet Muhammad; between the promulgators of Jihad and Sharia and the recorded words of the Prophet.

Get it?

Posted by: Cornelius at August 19, 2006 11:30 AM

Susanp,
Part of the reason why there aren't more gays like Dominic is that right-wingers have told them they're not welcome and have driven them away.

Here in America, the gay columnist Andrew Sullivan and the lesbian feminist Tammy Bruce both went out of their way to support Bush's war against terrorism, in the face of criticism from some of their own gay friends. But as the Republicans continued to win elections by denouncing same-sex marriage as a wedge issue, and appealing to anti-gay sentiment among their hard core base, both Sullivan and Bruce felt betrayed. They said they still support the war on terrorism (in general), but could not in good conscience vote for Bush's re-election in 2004. I'll bet there are many more gays and lesbians like them out there.

Even worse, last year there was a survey taken of the Republican rank-and-file, asking them what issues were most important to them. The survey found that more of them cared about stopping gay marriage and stopping abortion than about stopping terrorism. Even a conservative magazine like the Weekly Standard, which reported on these findings, was disturbed at the implications. It means that the rank-and-file of neither party considers stopping terrorism to be a top priority.

It really blurs our propaganda message to the world when we denounce Muslim countries for their treatment of homosexuals but then turn right around and use gay-bashing--the implicit fear that gays and lesbians are destructive of "family values"--as a political tool to win elections here at home.

Posted by: Steven L. at August 19, 2006 11:42 AM

Cornelius, why do you refer to him as the "Prophet Mohammed". He's only a prophet in Islamic theology. To non Muslims he is no prophet. Muslims don't refer to Jesus as "The Son of God" so I don't see why non Muslims should confer prophethood on Mohammed.

He's the "Islamic prophet Mohammed" or just "Mohammed".

Regards..

Posted by: Celsius at August 19, 2006 11:43 AM

Robert - very much looking forward to this.

One comment - shouldn't the word religion be in quotes? - Founder of the World's Most Intolerantr "Religion" ??

Posted by: BunrattyBill at August 19, 2006 11:56 AM

Dominic writes:

Moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical, personal or religious circumstances. Knowing that is what makes islam so difficult to fight....

Maybe that's why it's easier for Americans to oppose radical Islam on philosophical grounds than for you Europeans. We actually wrote down our principles (Declaration of Independence), which were certainly radical for their time; and then we created a Constitution that implemented those principles. And we can just go through those documents, line by line, comparing them with Sharia and the Quran and seeing where the latter fall short. And for over two centuries, over vastly changing "social, cultural, historical, personal or religious circumstances," we have stuck by those principles. Being human, we don't always live up to those principles. But we don't abandon them either.

For Islam, Americanism is a tough philosophical nut to crack--a belief system inimical to theirs which is also based on its own timeless absolutes.

Posted by: Steven L. at August 19, 2006 11:58 AM

Tresane:

I'm not at all sure I understand your further question. Perhaps I am not smoking the requisite materials. In any case, Cornelius has it right: I am not pretending to take on the perspective of a seventh century individual. I am explicating the seventh century statements and events that twenty-first century individuals take as normative.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at August 19, 2006 12:11 PM

. If you spent your life studying women, having a fasination with women early on in your life carried over to today, basically, if you spent as much time researching women as you have Islam, would you be able to generalize what it means to be a woman, and be able to zero in on a gender-niche to the degree that you could honestly write a book that sums up militant feminism?
Posted by: W.Tresane

The old "you can't possibly understand islam if you are not: an arabic speaking
muslim" (because allah gives muslims some kind of secret de-coder ring)
The texts are not that hard to comprehend, a lot of killing and hatred going on.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at August 19, 2006 12:21 PM

Tresane:

One more thing:

You say: "If I'm the mother of militant feminism, and during the course of my life I was raped by strangers, molested by family members, burried three husbands, had two miscarrages and a still birth, growing up as a black, hadicapped revolutionary from a ghetto on the moon, could you re-esemble my life from 1400 year old sources and then present it to the world as "The Truth about Briannashawnee, Founder of the Universe's Most Unforgiving Movement"?"

I reject your implication that Muhammad was more sinned against than sinning, and that his actions and words can be understood in terms of victimology. I don't think your position on this is supported by the historical record. But I look forward to your own publication on these matters.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at August 19, 2006 12:30 PM

To Robert Spencer

All the best for your latest book! Hope many people buy it... i certainly will!

Just one question: Could you put no's next to the person's post, like they do on the little green footballs site eg.

#124 Posted by: Carolyn2 at August 19, 2006 12:21 PM

This will:

1. Make it easier to follow previous conversations between different posters

2. Make it easier to commment on someone elses post, because then you can just refer to the post number, instead of cutting and pasting what the person said.

3. Make the entire thread shorter because of no2

Posted by: DiscipleofJesusChrist at August 19, 2006 12:38 PM

"I have only one question for Robert and I believe
that a good percentage of the members would be curious to see your answer. I'll warn you that it puts you on the spot. I'm going to paraphrase you in the set-up. If you spent your life studying women, having a fasination with women early on in your life carried over to today, basically, if you spent as much time researching women as you have Islam, would you be able to generalize what it means to be a woman, and be able to zero in on a gender-niche to the degree that you could honestly write a book that sums up militant feminism?

Posted by: W.Tresane at August 19, 2006 08:49 AM"

I have not spent a great time of my life studying women. I have given only a short time to muslims emulating muhammad. And I have come across severed heads, limbs, ancient cities looking like slaughterhouses (the kill floor), destroyed Zoroastrian temples, destroyed Byzantine cathedrals, destroyed Hindu temples, and the fact that the Buddhists do not even record the destruction of their monastaries since they do not want the future Buddhists to carry "A grudge" . And it was all done by, hold your breath, followers of muhammad. All in emulating the perfect man. Do I need to add more ?

Posted by: arjun.sevak at August 19, 2006 1:00 PM

Hello Robert

I have only recently become aware of the Jihadwatch blog in particular the threat of Islam, although I admit I had a good idea and never bothered to take it seriously. Thank you for your dedication and academia to the subject matter to which helps educate the average layperson as to the real ideaology that is the religion of Islam. I have just preordered your book on Amazon.co.uk and I am looking forward to learning much more and being even further enlightened. Hopefully it will arrive earlier than November as I am now fascinated by what evil these people will do in the name of so called religion. I hope sincerely that your endeavours are not in vain and that the book is a success.

Kindest Regards from acroos the pond. A British Patriot.

Posted by: M at August 19, 2006 1:11 PM

americaningermany/

I am ashamed of that entire exchange with Hugh. I broke my own rules and posted in anger and said things, and said them in ways, that I most heartily wish I had not done. I should have emailed Hugh an apology as soon as I calmed down. I didn't and I'm sorry for that too.

Hugh, if your reading this please accept my unreserved apologies for being an arrogant little p***k on that thread the other day. I should have known better and I should have behaved better. Sorry.

BTW, everybody, I am most certainly not anti-American - quite the reverse, in fact and I deprecate most strongly the knee-jerk anti-Americanism of many of my countrymen-and-women. Just remember as I do that this site would not be hosted by any UK hosting company. Thank God that the USA still has freedom of speech.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 19, 2006 1:11 PM

americaningermany -

"ballerina reciting Shakespeare"....thanks for the belly laugh :D :D :D

Posted by: champ at August 19, 2006 1:26 PM

"why do you refer to him as the "Prophet Mohammed". He's only a prophet in Islamic theology." -- Celsius

One good reason to refer to him as "Prophet Mohammed" is because there are millions of other "Mohammeds". It is childish to withhold that title from him, as though simply repeating it, as the normative title he is known by, is automatically to accord him Abrahamic Prophethood. Sometimes I think the anti-Islam movement is composed of something like 60% grown children.

Big bear of a man sitting cramped in a 3rd-grader's desk with his crayons, pounding his big grownup fist on the little desk top:

"I don't WANNA call Mohammed a "Pwaffit", because he wasn't no Pwaffit! Don't call him a Pwaffit -- WAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!"

Posted by: Television at August 19, 2006 2:43 PM

Wow, that was an intelligent response.

Posted by: Celsius at August 19, 2006 5:19 PM

Dominic--

I'm not sure I know what you are talking about but fine, I'll pocket, or put in my green bookbag, any and all apologies proferred by anyone under the sun. Time hath a wallet at his back, but I've got my green book bag. Come to think of it, if anyone wants to send alms for oblivion, I'll put those in my green bag too.

Posted by: Hugh at August 19, 2006 5:37 PM

I assure you Robert that I was straight and sober during the composition of both posts. Insinuating that I was high is the easy way out of answering my question. Attempting to discredit me is mere cowardice. One of your fans argued my question and then you piggybacked their rebuttal, while Caroln2 got the idea: "you can't possibly understand islam if you are not: an arabic speaking muslim"
That is obviously a simple version of the question that I asked; simple enough that quite a few people understood my post. When you rightly so, avoided generalizations, I provided specifics in my exposition.
After checking out other posts on other topics, I believe I've got the idea of the sort of members that your book sales come from.
I don't believe that you are incapable of authoring an objective book; rather your fans would be disappointed if you wrote it thus.
The pop culture enemy is Islam now that the cold war is over. The mainstream media has been riling up the masses for years. I don't mention the obvious to steal your thunder, you provide a service and a venue for those who need to vent and propagate hate. Why not promote love? I can tell you from productive first hand experience that it is very rewarding.
Your fans read like a new trench coat mafia handbook. The establishment allows for tolerance and the mainstream view is too forgiving in its depiction of their enemy. Extremists (those with extremist views) aren't accepted by the rest so they gather here among many other places on the net. What is the common thread? How do these people relate? Perhaps none of them fit into today's civilized society; they don't belong.
You sir, are a fear mongering profiteer and as far as you looking "forward to your own publication on these matters", you and your kind would not find what you're looking for on my website.
Good day.
Sincerely,
Walter "Pastor T" Tresane

Posted by: W.Tresane at August 19, 2006 7:41 PM

The pop culture enemy is Islam now that the cold war is over.

Where in western pop culture can one see this? You can't. The other side to this site, dhimmiwatch, is all about that lamentable fact, that in our pluralistic way too tolerant society, islam is not being attacked, not being banned, not being made the enemy, indeed, islam is not even being mentioned as the enemy.

Some of the few who can see this, are here. And that concerns you. It concerns you that not everyone is blind and naive.

Why not promote love?

What are you smoking? The first act of love is to protect those that you love. I love my country, my culture, my laws, my heritage and my family. And my dog. Islam seeks to enslave, kill, or destroy all of that. The Koran demands it. The clerics demand it. The imams demand it. Islam demands it.

Posted by: August22 at August 19, 2006 7:59 PM

Tresane:

I admit to being flip. It is a big character flaw. But I did answer your question. I don't believe one has to be a 7th-century Arab in order to report accurately on the words and deeds of Muhammad.

Instead of flinging unsubtantiated and unsubstantiatable charges of hate and fear mongering, why not refute the book when it comes out? Show the world how I misuse the Islamic texts from which I work. To speak of hate on my part when the opposition is sawing off heads involves, in my opinion, just a bit of cognitive dissonance.

So please show where I'm wrong. No one ever has up to now. I look forward to seeing your efforts in this direction.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at August 19, 2006 8:05 PM

Oh, and one other thing, Tresane:

I have been doing this work publicly for five years and privately for far longer than that, and I am not fooled by this sort of thing. You were going to depart calling me a fearmongering profiteer from the moment you first clicked onto the site and asked me your first question, no matter what kinds of answers I gave, and you and I both know it.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at August 19, 2006 8:14 PM

"Why not promote love? I can tell you from productive first hand experience that it is very rewarding." "...your kind would not find what you're looking for on my website."

Mercy, please give us the URL for your site now! The suspense is killing me. It could be just what I am looking for to make my day!

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 19, 2006 8:21 PM

There is no analogy between understanding women and understanding islam. A man may never understand women, because gender is biological. Islam, however, like any other school of thought, is not biological, but ideological. And any person, who has a brain and can read, can understand ideology. Understanding the nature of islam is no more difficult than understanding why someone would want to lord over others, subjugative them, rape them, rob them, and then kill them just for sport. That is very easy to understand. All the base, cruder instincts of man are present and paramount in islam. Very simple to understand that. You don't need to be evil yourself, to study evil and write books about it.

Women, granted, no one can understand them. Robert wouldn't go there.

Posted by: August22 at August 19, 2006 9:01 PM

Hugh/

Thank-you for being so gracious. Rather than the alms of the Shakespeare quote I could send you for your green bag the ten volumes of Raven's Alms for Oblivion - but would they all fit in. Come to think of it the Dogear Wryde postcards - Alms for Oblivion series - would probably be a neater fit, but I'm not parting with my Gashlycrumb Tinies.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 19, 2006 9:02 PM

Concerned Citizen/

Pastor T is possibly at:

http://www.therockinternational.org/index.htm

It certainly claims to be Pastor T's blog.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at August 19, 2006 9:09 PM

"Tresane: I'm not at all sure I understand your further question. Perhaps I am not smoking the requisite materials."

LOL! I, too, found the "question" (or whatever that was) unclear, incoherent, pointless, and irrelevant.

Posted by: Archimedes at August 19, 2006 9:25 PM

Pastor T?

Could you confirm that link for me? And if so, why "...your kind would not find what you're looking for on my website".

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 19, 2006 10:08 PM

One of the objections to your book appears to be that you are an inhabitant of twenty-first century America and a non-Muslim, and therefore, apparently, you cannot possibly know what the life of Muhammad, who if he lived at all (that is uncertain) is said by Muslims to have lived in early 7th century Arabia, was like. If that were to be accepted as true, then of course even 21st century Muslims would not know about what Muhammad's real life was like.

Indeed, no history at all could ever be attempted, for no American should write about France, no Frenchman about Mexico, no Indian about China, and so on, and certainly not about the Romans or the Greeks or indeed, anything older than yesterday's headline.

That is what would happen if one actually took the objection made by "Paster T" seriously -- an objection that would prevent any writing of history, and is of course idiotic. But it is even more idiotic in that Robert is not attempting to write his own biography of Muhammad. Not at all. What he has done is show what the Muslim biographers of Muhammad have written about him, what Believers in Islam think Muhammad did, or said, or even about when he was silent. And for that, one can be a Muslim or a non-Muslim, an American or a Paraguayan or a Punjabi or a passe-partout citizen of the world, and for that matter, can be a woman as well as a man (shocking, isn't it, the very idea of a woman, an Infidel woman, daring to compile a biography of Muhammad).

Posted by: Hugh at August 19, 2006 11:19 PM

PASTER T: "The mainstream media has been riling up the masses for years."

This statement alone proves how out of touch with reality 'Paster T' really is. The mainstream media has in fact been quite obsequious in its coverage of Islam..."for years."

Hence, the need for blogs lik