We have a whole generation of American school children that have been brainwashed and indoctrinated in this despicable manner. However, merely rewriting the textbooks will have little effect UNLESS teachers also change.

1. Teachers should be notified of the changes and why these have been made.

2. Teachers are trained how to spot bias in textbooks. Of course, this will be problematic because teachers have also been brainwashed and indoctrinated.

3. School boards will need to take a proactive roll that is respectful of other cultures, but NOT AT THE EXPENSE of traditional American culture.

4. Some of the real culprits lurk in the universities that train not only the elite, but the trainers of classroom teachers, disseminating damaging ideologies throughout society. One of the goals of a classroom teacher is affects students so as to be good citizens, not to enslave their minds with dangerous Anti-American ideologies.

We should all contact Tancredo and thank him for his efforts. The pen is mightier than the sword. These textbooks are evidence of the truth of this old adage.

This dispute about the meaning of the word "jihad" is not just a reflection of somebody's propaganda, but rather reflects a real difference in how the term is understood by moderate Muslims on the one hand, and extremist ones on the other. So it's out of place to insult those who favour the moderate definition.

Put the moderates defintion into practice, eliminate that of the Radicals, and the rest will come around. Actions speak louder than words. Americans don't see the moderate point of view because the moderate aren't DOING anything about the radicals. All they do is talk, citicize and complain, which will not solve the problem. If they are taking a proactive role to solve this problem, it is not being reported for mainsteam consumption.

My dad could never stand a complainer. Whenever we would comlplain he expected us to be proactive with by the following, "Just don't talk about it, get out and DO SOMETHING! If you don't want to do something about it, shut up!"

Carl Stoll ~

The moderate definition of jihad is certainly favourable. The insult is that the moderate deinition is not preached to the extremists. Is it only for the ears of the West?

I would like to comment in here, u(westerners) where trying to give a different meaning, thinking as to bring out something which is not, but u fools don't see that ur plans r taking the adverse effect in itself??? U planned something but it turns out to be something else, so know that clearly that there is someone who controls everything, That is Allah(One God). Come to follow the Truth(Islam). After death then thinking of returning back is not possible. So try to find the truth of God and accept it.

Carl Stoll,

There is a Definition A & B for Jihad. Definition A is war and terrorism. Definition B is "inner struggle"
It is an insult to everyone's intelligence when "moderate" Muslims feign not knowing about the blood and steel definition of Jihad. Of course, "moderate" Muslims and others can feign taking offense at truthtellers like Robert Spencer, but that is their psychological problem, not ours. What makes them lie? Carl Stoll, please tell us.

My dear Carl Stoll:

I'm afraid "Bob Dole" is correct. If you consult Islamic legal manuals (or my books, in which I quote those manuals copiously), you'll see that the difference between jihad as the struggle within the soul and jihad as struggle on the battlefield is not the difference between the moderate definition and the radical one. Rather, both definitions are well attested in the Islamic sources. Many false moderates today, however, try to pretend that only one of these definitions -- the peaceful one -- exists. That is deceptive.

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

That staple of apologetics, the hadith about Muhammad returning from the "Lesser Jihad" of battle to the "Greater Jihad" of conscience-wrestling within a domestic context, much favored by the Armstrongs and Espositos of this world, is a "weak" hadith, not found in the standard, "best" recensions of al-Bukhari and Muslim.

The main point surely is: those apologists for Islam, both Muslims and non-Muslims, who deliberately mislead unwary Infidels as to the central tenets of Islam (including that of Jihad, as the means to expand the dar al-Islam and subjugate other lands now part of dar al-Harb, or the Lands of the Infidels where Muslim rule has not yet been established) are themselves furthering the Jihad through the sinister use of "pen, speech." Anyone who objectively furthers the Jihad -- not just through support of terrorism but above all by misleading others as to the true teachings of Islam, furthers that world-wide Jihad, and must be treated with at least great suspicion, and possibly exposed and removed from any position of authority, just as one would, in the middle of World War II, have promptly removed from office, silenced, and possibly imprisoned, those mouthing pro-Nazi sentiments. The Jihad is not confined to "terrorism'; that is but one of its weapons, and not necessarily the most effective. Demography is by far the most dangerous instrument of Jihad. Until a sufficient number of inhabitants of the Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels, begin to appreciate the slow-built edifices of their own civilizations, and show gratitude to the thousands of thinkers and artists who created those civilizations (none of whom would have lasted one minute under Islam)that demographic invasion, and the concomitant da'wa and deliberate overbreeding by Muslims, will not be addressed in the way it must be: with a complete end of Muslim migration to non-Muslim lands, forced returns to Muslim countries and, most likely, large-scale expulsions of populations that are essentially of believers in a geopolitical cult that demands loyalty only to the umma of fellow Muslims, and works, in ways far beyond violent Jihad, to undo the liberal and tolerant and advanced societies which they both despise, and wish to end, but until that happens are happy to take full advantage of. It should not beyond the wit of Infidels to create an atmosphere distinctly difficult both for da'wa (by, for example, preventing madrasas and mosques from being built) and otherwise making the conditions of life for Muslims not quite as welcoming as they can be for all others who, while they come with an alien creed, do not come as adherents of a hostile creed.

We are under no obligation to commit suicide. It may be too late for France, or for some other countries once regarded as central to Western civilization. It is not too late for the United States to recognize the danger, and act to oppose it. This is both like, and unlike, the threat posed by the Nazis -- alike in the intolerance of its adherents, who divide the world in Manichaean fashion between Muslim and non-Muslim. It is unlike the Nazis in that while we would not, during World War II, have knowingly permitted the large-scale influx of Nazi sympathizers and supporters, we do continue to allow Muslim immigrants to enter our lands, Muslims such as the managing director of al-Jazeera to inform the maker of a documentary on his station, a cross between TASS and Der Sturmer, that he intended to send his children to study "in the United States" to enjoy "the American dream, not the Arab nightmare." His smug assumption that this will be possible should be shattered; and those who begin to insist that "but that is the way to change their minds, to let them see our country, etc. etc. ) should simply be ignored. Musharraf's son is an accountant in Canton, Mass. The siblings of Karzai run Afghan restaurants in Cambridge, Massachusetts and outside Washington. Even the most dangerous, because most plausible, of agents of Islam, such as the attractive and sinister Tariq Ramadan, manage to find positions (in his case, at the Kroc Center at the University of Notre Dame, an act of fantastic folly, both silly and sinister, by its naive director)seem able to find positions in the U.S. , while those who really tell the truth, such ex-Muslims as Ibn Warraq, are seldom given the attention, and certainly not the positions, they deserve.

As the evidence to the contrary mounts, fewer and fewer non-Muslims can continue to accept the idiotic proposition that Islam is a religion of "peace" and "tolerance." Every black massacred by Muslims in Darfur or the southern Sudan, every Hindu or Sikh peasant whose throat is slit by Muslims in Kashmir, or Bangladesh, or Pakistan, every Christian villager killed in the Moluccas and Sulawesi, every Hindu or Chinese forced to obey the "Bumiputra" system, a new version of the jizyah, in Malaysia, every Orthodox Church torched by Muslim Albanian mobs, every bomb found in pliant Madrid, every explosive uncovered in London, in Manchester, in Bradford, in Turin, in Milan, in Rome, every native-born Muslim within the United States working to destroy the country to which, according to Muslim doctrine, he cannot owe any allegiance, though he may ostentatiously participate in "interfaith dialogue"(a pointless enterprise, undertaken at this point only by the hopelessly naive Infidels), and candlelight vigils (quite the fashion after 9/11)engages in all this only to protect the positin of Muslims, and to evade anything like scrutiny that is called for, and to avoid displaying the candor that Infidels have every right, at this point, to demand of Muslims. Yet all that taqiyya, that kitman, that endless deception, is now for naught -- there are too many non-Muslims educating themselves about Islam, in a scholarly anbd thorough manner, and spreading the word to others. These people are no longer impressed in the slighest, if they ever were, by the silly Armstrongs, sinister Saids, and corrupt Espositos. They are not impressed by titles, and have given that otherwise doubtful phrase "Question Authority" real significance. They will not buy the line peddled by professors of Middle Eastern studies. They will, when necessary, see through even the most venerable scholars who, while they are far closer to truth-telling than those who have tormented them for years, nonetheless themselves fall short of complete candor themselves, particularly about the full nature of the institution of dhimmitude, and about the full damage wrought by Islam as a belief-system, both as a danger to all Infidels, and as a system of thought-control for its own adherents. For Islam, let it be said, stunts the growth, the only kind of growth that really matters -- to wit, the intellectual and moral growth of its own adherents. Those who pull their punches in order not to offend Muslim friends, or colleagues, or patrons (Prince Hassan ibn Talal comes unctuously to mind)are dong damage to their own posthumous reputation. We have the studies of Ibn Warraq, of Bat Ye'or, of Michael Cook, of Patricia Crone. Among the great dead, there are Arthur Jeffrey, Joseph Schacht (both once at Columbia, where now the likes of the PLO propagandist Rashid Khalidi hold chairs named for the likes of Edward Said), Margoliouth, Snouck Hurgronje, Armand Abel, and dozens more.

Islam has its origins in the need for Arab conquerors to justify, and promote, their conquest of far more numerous, far more civilized peoples of Mesopotamia, Syria, Judea ("Palestine"), and North Africa. The tenets of the cult were composed, and modified over time, in order to meet the needs of those conquerors. And then those tenets were fixed in stone, or amber, both Qur'an and hadith, and the gates of ijtihad swung shut, and the brief period when there were still significant, and not completely cowed, populations of non-Muslims (chiefly Christians and Jews, but also including Zoroastrians), the only period in which Islam offered any discernible intellectual activity, came to an end. And that was a thousand years ago; it has been nothing but political, economic, and above all intellectual and moral failure, ever since. Yet, owing to an accident of geology, we are now confronted with Muslim power, based on oil money, which has invigorated, and promoted, the Jihad we see all around us, in its various embodiments, and making use of various instruments (here buying up diplomats, there buying up nitroglycerine or Stinger missiles).

The full malevolance, and sheer craziness, of this geopolitical cult (which many persisst in identifying, so misleadingly, only as a "religion") needs to be thoroughly understood. And those who do understand it have a duty to instruct others in what they have learned. Their lives and way of life depend on a sufficientr number of people receiving such instruction in time.

Islam renders its own adherents far more primitive than they would otherwise be. The threat of JIhad is not temporary but permanent, and we have no surefire mechanism for distinguishing the "moderate" Muslim from the one merely practicing taqiyya, or kitman, that is to say, religiously-sanctioned deception.But this can be said. There are many powerful people, particularly in Europe, who have made a deal with the devil. They sought, at first, only to recycle petro-dollars, but what they have done is essentially sell out their own peoples, and allowed in an influx of dangerous immigrants who cannot be integrated (except insofar as they give up their adherence to Islam), and who now render the lives of those among whom they have come to live, and to convert or subjugate, far more difficult, unpleasant, and dangerous than they would be had such immigration never been allowed). The practitioners of appeasement, such as Javier Solana, Chris Patten, Romano Prodi,not to mention Dominique de Villepin and Jacques Chirac, are quislings but not yet seen as such, part of a European elite that has believed it could "handle" Muslim demands but never bothered to really study what Islam was all about, instead relying on the suave assurances of the most plausible Muslim leaders, and those "scholars" of Islam who themselves are apologists, not explicators, of the belief-system that has, everywhere it has conquered, created a way of life inferior, in every respect, to what had obtained before. The U.N. has for several decades been thoroughly infiltrated and dominated by Muslim agents of influence. ONe has only to look at Edward Mortimer, that great and deep early admirer of Ayatollah Khomeini, whose animus toward Israel runs to the promotion of a supposed "alliance" between the Nazis and the Zionists - Edward Mortimer, who before he came to the U.N. was in up to his neck in the Euro-Arab Dialgoue, and now, as Kofi Annan's chief speech-writer, and "Director of Communications," fashions the words, and hence the thoughts, of Kofi Annan. There is that creator and stout defenderthe Durban Conference and its endless indecencies, the self-righteous Mary Robinson, worrying aloud not about antisemitism (in her view, they have it coming) but about something she and Annan seem greatly concerned about, to wit -- "Islamophobia." (One wonders just what that word is intented to suppress -- the dawning understanding, by Infidels, of just what Islamic tenets mean for them?) Robinson, by all acounts, was putty in the hands of the Arab propagandist Mona Rishmawi. And if the EU, and the UN, are both riddled with agents of Islam, or of Euro-Arab Dialogue (where "North" will do nothing to defend itself from the invasions from the "South" and both will join to oppose the real enemy -- not Islam, but the United States of America, which, as all sensible people know, is Europe's steadfast protector for Islam as Mary Robinson (Mona Rishmawi's marionette), the final redoubt that has been conquered are the major outlets of the Western media. Agence France-Presse, for example, has long used Arab personnel on the ground in the MIddle East. It is Arab photographers who pose the pictures that further the Arab cause in "Palestine" and Iraq. It is Arab or arabisant commentators who mold public opinion in France. And the BBC World Service deserves special condemnation for offering up so many complacent Lord Haw-Haws and Tokyo Roses, serenely broadcasting right from Bush House. That the likes of Judy Swallow, is daily permitted to offer in her chirpily venomous fashion, a worldview entirely indistinguishable from the offerings of Al-Jazeera, that is from the most reactionary enemies of Western civilization and Western peoples, on the BBC is fantastical. To this favor have we come.

From this convincing analysis I assume that you would challenge the validity of the distinction made by Daniel Pipes in the opening chapter of his book "Militant Islam Reaches America" between "Islam - plain Islam - and its militant Islamic version"? Pipes goes on: "Islam is the religion of about 1 billion people and has been the host of one of the world's great civilizations. It is a fast-growing faith, particularly in Africa, but also around the world. In contrast, militant Islam is a utopian ideology, initiated in the twentieth century, that attracts only a portion of Muslims (perhaps 10 to 15 percent), seeks to capture control of governments, and is nakedly agressive toward all those who stand in its way, whatever their faith." (p.3)

Am I right in assuming this?

Hugh,

Pause ... Reread ... Silence ... Applause.

jay

Haldor

I weep. Words fail me. The exquisite eloquence of your narrative needs no additional comment.

Although I appreciate Haldor's post, I inadvertently directed my praise to the wrong person. Hugh, I apologize for the my mistake. My eyes did glaze.

You have succintly and elegantly summarized the entire problem and put forward the correct and inevitable solution. I salute not only your grasp of the situation, but the well of facts with which you back up your argument. Obviously you have sources which are unavailable to most of us.

Thank you again for your continued willingness to instruct and inform.

epg

Hugh, great analysis. You need to write opinion columns for newspapers and magazines.

Hugh

Super comment. Backs up a lot of what I've been learning.

Why is this analysis stuck in a comments section ?

Hugh's is an excellent analysis, if a bit wordy.

All one needs to do, however, is to read the Koran from the point of view of a Muslim: the uncreated word of Allah, true for all time, past, present and future. If you add a little bit of knowledge about the Koran's construction, about abrogation, you have it: a book of hate, a manual of war and death, the preachings of a megalomaniac.

Muslims are not hiding what is in there. They are proud that Muhammad assasinated people, consumated a marriage with a 9 year old, and preached endless war on non-believers.

There is no moderate Islam, and hence no moderate Muslims, unless they reject the core of Islam, but then they are not Muslims - catch 22.

Why is this so hard to see?

Tancredo repeatedly warns of the harsh consequences
of unrestrained immigration. Immigration is problem
for the entire western world.

Our degenerate elites refuse to address the question.
Undoubtedly, immigration is being used as a tactic or
sword against the west.

If you are interested in doing something other than
complaining and digging a hole in the ground
then join up with a respected organization:

http://www.numbersusa.com

Budd wrote:

"Why is this so hard to see?"

Could it be because in the West we're not used to the idea of *religions* that have as their central driving force "a book of hate, a manual of war and death, the preachings of a megalomaniac"? Adolf Hitler, the most recent author of such a book, was supposed to have been defeated at the end of the last world war, and was not considered particularly religious. Yet his adherents seem merely to have replaced his failed ideological opus with a religious one - the Koran. This is confusing to some people, but as time goes on I suppose the realization of what has happened will sink in. Just as there were no moderate Nazis, there are no moderate Muslims. Perhaps "Islamism" is a redundant concept?

Haldor - "I fear that Islamism is a redundant concept."

I fear you are right.

On the other hand, Robert Spencer says that while he has met many moderate Muslims, and calls for support for them in his book "Onward Muslim Soldiers", he has yet to find moderate Islam.

It's hard to know who to believe, and so it's not surprising that many people in the West find it hard to establish the truth of the matter.

I haven't read "Onward Muslim Soldiers" yet, but aim to do so in the next week or so.