• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Video: Robert Spencer on RT’s Worlds Apart, full edited interview as broadcast

Apr 20, 2014 9:50 am By Robert Spencer

This was a good, wide-ranging and heated discussion. The broadcast version, however, is not complete. Apparently RT thought that their host was coming off looking so blinkered and willfully ignorant that they cut out some of my remarks to make it a fair fight. There are three main portions of my remarks on this show that RT cut out of the show that they broadcast: I explained how violent passages in the Bible are descriptive, rather than prescriptive as in the Qur’an, explaining that there is no open-ended command in the Bible to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers, as there is in the Qur’an, and pointing out that there are no Jewish or Christian groups worldwide committing acts of violence and justifying them by quoting the Bible, while there are Muslim groups all over the world committing violence and justifying it by reference to the Qur’an. I also challenged host Oksana Boyko’s claim that “Palestinians” in Gaza were suffering under deplorable conditions, explaining about the sophistication of “Palestinian” jihad propaganda and suggesting that her “Palestinian” hosts took her to Potemkin villages constructed for propaganda purposes; and I listed the Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali), pointing out that all of them, as well as the Shi’ite schools, teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers.

I requested the full tape, rather than this selectively edited version, but RT would not release it to me. In any case, the broadcast version here gives a good, albeit partial view, of my contentious exchange with Boyko, whose objectives were to demonize the United States and to exonerate Islam of all responsibility for the violence that Muslims commit and then explain and justify by reference to Islam.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Jihad doctrine, Robert Spencer, Russia, Syria, United States Tagged With: featured


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Wich says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 10:41 am

    Very nice.
    Robert, you made her sweat on her defending jihadists!

  2. Diane Harvey says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 10:45 am

    This was not an interview, but rather an attempt by the interviewer (who is most decidedly not clueless, but rather obviously conniving) not to learn what Robert has to say, but to re-characterize Islam entirely.

    She really didn’t know what to do when she was shown the truth. She and her producers really don’t come off well.

    • Jay Boo says

      Apr 20, 2014 at 3:38 pm

      Regardless, she did allow him to complete his points and her challenges were polite and not nearly as dogmatic as many US leftist fanatical Islam apologists who also attempt “to exonerate Islam of all responsibility for the violence that Muslims commit”.
      Robert successfully leveraged the weight of truth about Islamic jihad against Islamic jihad.

    • voegelinian says

      Apr 22, 2014 at 1:29 pm

      What you’re describing is someone who already has a pre-fab paradigm in their heads and along comes someone with a different way of looking at the data — not merely a different way, but a way which threatens key parts of one’s pre-fab paradigm and would require nothing less than deconstruction and stepping outside the box, which in turn would force that strange psychocultural phenomenon: changing one’s mind — in this case, changing one’s mind about something nearest and dearest to the hearts of all PC MCs: their narcissistic self-worth based on their ethical anxiety to be “not bigoted” (or, for short, their ethical narcissism).

      Now, the above all applies only if the person is a Westerner and does not have actual dhimmitude hardwired into their cultural DNA through a familial connection to parents, or grandparents, or more distant ancestors who themselves were directly oppressed by Muslims (or sometimes we find even a personal connection in the person’s lifetime to such direct experience, as perhaps, for example, our JW Softy “Salah”).

  3. Cunamarra says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 10:59 am

    Excellent interview. I found her points indicative of her dogmatic denial of Islamic teachings and principles but she allowed Mr. Spencer to freely and thoroughly answer each point though she took the last word in the interview. The two of them are fully on point in recognizing the utterly insane foreign policy of the U.S. Unfortunately I just read Robert Spencers explanation of the editing and I suppose the truth is forever on the editors scaffold.

    • raylanfear says

      Apr 20, 2014 at 2:18 pm

      Truth is here. http://wp.me/p2GpDB-dg

  4. Frank Scarn says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 11:01 am

    Quite funny. By the end of the interview she’s carrying her head in a basket (but still managing a smiling goodby), having finally realized that her interviewee/RS knew a great deal more about Islam than she could have ever hoped to have known. LOL.

  5. max publius says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 11:02 am

    Good show. She obviously met some nice Muslim suck-ups on her whirlwind tour of the Gaza, sorta like those Americans who visited Nazi Germany in the 1930’s coming away with warm memories of average Germans and concluding Nazism must not be that bad.

    Big problem when terms like moderate are not fixed to a standard. The “moderates” of Islam slaughter people in mass–in other words, they are far more evil than even those Westboro Baptists who never killed anyone, but are considered (all 20 of them) the most extreme of Christians.

  6. Beth says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 11:09 am

    Oksana Boyko has not done her own homework. It is obvious. I wonder if watching a video of an acual beheading as the passages in the Koran are being read might make her reconsider her position. For some reason – I doubt it.

    Great interview Robert.

  7. Antikythera says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 11:21 am

    The interviewer kept saying that their are different interpretations of Islam ,some peaceful and some violent depending on cultural and economic factors. What one has is not a choice of Koranic interpretations which were already settled a thousand years ago but a choice in either accepting them or ignoring them and it is that choice of level of Islamic religiosity which may be influenced by economic factors not its interpretation.

    • PRCS says

      Apr 20, 2014 at 2:32 pm

      Correct.

      Though many do not like the analogy, “moderate” Muslims are like Catholics who use aritificial birth control methods. Neither is in full compliance with the teachings of their respective religions’ teachings, and those who do strive for full compliance have not been “radicalized”, are not “radicals” or “extremists” for doing so, and are not practicing some “radical” version of either of those two ideologies. It is–as you note–the degree to which an individual complies with already settled interpretations. The issue, of course, is how very different those ideologies are.

      • Clare says

        Apr 21, 2014 at 2:49 pm

        It’s not that I don’t like your analogy, it’s that it is no analogy at all. The Catholic Church does not have a political fighting force (as in Islam ‘jihad’) of individuals, cells, or units populated by ‘radical’ Catholics who are buoyed up by ‘moderate’ Catholic supporters of jihad. There is no motive for Catholics killing other Catholics or non-Catholics that directly links the murders, the political act (Shiria Law), with rules directing them to do it, the religious act (Koran).
        Jihad stands as the political wing of Islam. In my opinion, jihadis aren’t ‘radicals’ they are a mandated Islam fighting force and ‘moderates’ are Mahometans who are against Shiria Law.
        P.S. If all these millions of Mahometans don’t want jihad and are against Shiria law, then get rid of it. If this is not possible, then leave Islam.

        • voegelinian says

          Apr 22, 2014 at 1:51 pm

          And if they won’t leave Islam, they are persisting in arraying themselves as our mortal enemy by enabling our mortal enemy, in terms of the only good thing Dubya ever said (whoever is not with us, is against us).

      • voegelinian says

        Apr 22, 2014 at 1:50 pm

        Congratulations you two on re-packaging the TMOE Meme. One step forward, two steps back.

    • Michael Copeland says

      Apr 20, 2014 at 4:06 pm

      Exactly. The trouble is that Western leaders have been fed with taqiyya by their muslim advisers. “If you want to know about Islam”, Paul Wilkinson writes, “don’t talk to muslims”. The UK Government is hugely handicapped:
      See “Time to brush the wool away, Boris”
      http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/6350-time-to-brush-the-wool-away-boris

    • voegelinian says

      Apr 22, 2014 at 1:43 pm

      Congratulations on re-packaging the TMOE Meme. One step forward, two steps back.

  8. Salah says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 11:37 am

    “..I also challenged host Oksana Boyko’s claim that “Palestinians” in Gaza were suffering under deplorable conditions, explaining about the sophistication of “Palestinian” jihad propaganda..”

    The jihad propaganda is not only “Palestinian.”

    Watch the jihad propaganda on the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt:
    http://crossmuslims.blogspot.ca/2014/04/al-jazeera-busted-strong-bias-of-al.html

  9. Simon says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 11:55 am

    For whatever reason, Oksana Boyko is an apologist for the Palestinians and an enthusiastic promoter of anti-Jewish propaganda, as I have witnessed in other interviews she has conducted. This prejudice is also reflected in RT’s other “journalist” show from the States – Breaking the Set by Abby Martin. I don’t know if this bias stems from fear or ignorance. Perhaps a bit of both.

    • voegelinian says

      Apr 22, 2014 at 1:53 pm

      For whatever reason? The reason is that she has been breathing in the rich oxygen of the PC MC mainstream culture and leaning back to soak in the warming rays of the PC MC Sun that abounds all about her in the mainstream.

  10. Antikythera1 says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 11:59 am

    The interviewer kept saying that their are different interpretations of Islam ,some peaceful and some violent depending on cultural and economic factors. What one has is not a choice of Koranic interpretations which were already settled a thousand years ago but a choice in either accepting them or ignoring them and it is that choice or level of Islamic religiosity which may be influenced by economic factors not its interpretation.

  11. Diann says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    Great job Robert – even this edited version clearly shows the ignorance of the interviewer and her determination to deflect all that you have to say. So proud of the work you are doing – keep the courage. There must be some days when you want to hit your head on a wall – having to deal with the same issues and types of people – over and over again. You are the clear winner in this debate…

    • raylanfear says

      Apr 20, 2014 at 2:19 pm

      Ditto good job. http://wp.me/p2GpDB-dg

  12. Faye says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 12:15 pm

    She doesn’t have an argument and it’s the same old political correctness that’s costing us lives! The lack of knowledge concerning Islam is killing the west.

  13. Oraha says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 12:28 pm

    Great interview Robert you trying to highlight the truth, but she trying to dem it!

  14. Buraq says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 12:35 pm

    It seems to me that this presenter, Oksana Boyko, has been thoroughly trained to argue for Islam. She went through the whole gamut of defenses, shifting the target to make it as difficult as possible for Mr Spencer. Nevertheless, Robert hit the bull’s eye every time.
    I’ll bet she’s been told that she’ll have to do some more training since Robert trounced her, point by point.

    Nice one!

  15. shrugger says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 1:09 pm

    This wasn’t fair to her at all with two strikes against her.
    1) Blond
    2) Ignorant Leftist

  16. Bradamante says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    Excellent and informative video. I think it was good that she kept asking tough questions, because it gave Robert Spencer the chance to knock down the kinds of objections some people have. I wish we could see the rest of it.

    • PGuud says

      Apr 21, 2014 at 5:25 am

      Right. If nothing else, Oksana Boyko played devil’s advocate–and Robert refuted her arguments handily. However, I’m sure that Muslims and their lap dogs will find fault with her argumentation/line of questioning.

      Islam: where freedom ends and slavery begins.

  17. jewdog says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 1:32 pm

    Maladyetz! Good job!
    I liked the response that Thai and Filipino jihadist insurgency has nothing to do with US foreign policy.
    I can’t believe this idiot makes poverty excuses for Hamas violence. Next time, ask if Chechen and Dagestani violence is because of poverty. Or maybe ask where are all those Haitian suicide bombers.
    Even after the Soviet collapse the Russians are obsessed with anti-Americanism, just as chickens keep running after their heads are cut off. They need a new play-book.

    • Bradamante says

      Apr 20, 2014 at 1:35 pm

      Unfortunately, our government seems equally stuck in the Cold War. It’s long past time for all of us infidels to unite.

  18. Wellington says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 1:44 pm

    Watching this interview was akin to watching an NFL team playing not a college football team but a high school football team. Oh yeah, total slaughter.

  19. DJM says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    You made her look like a complete dolt and dedicated dhimmi. Nice trick, RS!

  20. raylanfear says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    Find the video very informative along with this. http://wp.me/p2GpDB-dg

  21. sheik yer'mami says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    I suspect Oksana Boyko is a Russian Muslim.

    • Know Thy Enemy says

      Apr 20, 2014 at 4:59 pm

      I doubt that. She is clearly just another westerner who has never bothered to study Islam (and its effects on believers), and only knows what she has been told regarding Islam and extremists!

    • thomas_h says

      Apr 21, 2014 at 3:38 am

      Oksana is a Ukrainian name while Boyko can be both Ukrainian and Russian.

  22. duh_swami says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    That was almost as good as the Mahoundian dance video. The hostess was dancing all over the place, some boogie woogi here, a little soft shoe there and then a twist. by the time it was over she was twisted in knots. She obviously had difficulty with the material, looked at notes constantly, blinks and says ‘uh’ a lot.
    A Megyn Kelly, she ain’t.

  23. dsinc says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    Good one Robert

  24. PRCS says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 3:13 pm

    As JewDog notes above:

    “Next time, ask if Chechen and Dagestani violence is because of poverty.”

    In blaming American foreign policy (which R/S clearly stated he’s not defending) for the crimes committed by Muslims around the world, is she really unaware that the centuries long jihad being waged against Russia by Chechen and Daegestani Muslims is a result of its own foreign policy toward them?

    • voegelinian says

      Apr 22, 2014 at 1:58 pm

      Muslims have been attacking and enslaving Russians and non-Muslim peoples of eastern Europe/central Asia for centuries.

  25. RCCA says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 3:33 pm

    Great job. Despite the edit Robert totally demolished the myth that US policy is responsible for jihad around the world, especially in places like Chechen. Or Syria, since Russia is supporting Assad. LOL. That is kind of ridiculous, isn’t it Oksana?

    Robert also demolished the idea that moderate Muslims are fighting radical Muslims in Syria. The moderates are clearly not interesting in fighting, they have and are fleeing Syria in the millions. It’s the radicals who are fighting for control in order to impose sharia which is why the US is having such a hard time dealing with Syria. There is no good guy there to support. Oddly Oksana seems to support the Free Syrian Army over Al Qaeda, but both are trying to oust Assad. There is no good reason for a Russian to support the ouster of Assad, so her support of “good” jihadists vs. “bad” jihadists is sort of funny.

    • voegelinian says

      Apr 22, 2014 at 2:02 pm

      Just because certain Muslims are fleeing or not fighting, that does not mean they are not dangerous Stockholm-Syndrome co-dependent enablers of the very same fanatical disease that is threatening them — and us. By continuing to support the systemic disease that is endangering our lives, they have arrayed themselves as our enemy, and our #1 priority should be defending our societies from all Muslims, not persisting in this delusionally quixotic Wilsonian enterprise of trying to save some Majority Remnant of Muslim “victims” of Islam.

      The only reason one even flirts with, or entertains such a reversal of rational priorities (away from protecting our societies, toward trying to save Muslim “victims”) is that one values one’s own ethical narcissism (based upon the anxiety that one might be “bigoted” and therefore not a nice person anymore) more than the lives of one’s friends, family and fellow citizens.

  26. Ayatrollah says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 4:22 pm

    Well he will. It be asked back to RT soon.

  27. Mike C says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 7:57 pm

    Im actually a regular viewer of RT. There main aim is to discredit the US and Israel, even if it means supporting jihadists. Sometimes they are pro-jihad and sometimes they are anti-jihad depending on the point they are trying to make. However RT still does provide a good insight into the dirty dealings of the US and its globalist allies, but you need to take their bias into consideration when watching their shows.

  28. Cranky says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 8:13 pm

    I watched this today (Sunday) on RT. Unfortunately, Oksana Boyko was taking the usual soft-Left approach of most of RT’s journalists. This is rather odd, considering the conservative stance of both the Russian government and Russian society in general. Had this discussion occurred with RT America, you can be assured that the RT journalist would have been far more hostile. Alas, RT America appears to be controlled by those promoting the degeneracy of Cultural Marxism, something that is rightly treated with much distaste in Russia itself.

    Considering that RT is subsidised by the Russian taxpayer, I would suggest that President Putin should instigate an investigation and purge into much of the editorial judgements of this news station.

    • voegelinian says

      Apr 22, 2014 at 2:10 pm

      “This is rather odd, considering the conservative stance of both the Russian government and Russian society in general. ”

      Why JWers persist in thinking that Russia is not PC MC because they are somehow “tougher” in terms of having been dictatorial under Tsarist regimes and then a Communist regime, is beyond me. Since Marxism is one important wellspring confluent with the phreatic waters of the neuroses (and psychoses) of Modernity whose formerly smaller vein of PC MC has more recently broadened and gushed into a mainstream Ocean throughout the entire West, it stands to reason that Russia would have in its cultural DNA a predisposition to PC MC, not an aversion to it.

      Additionally, being more directly victimized and traumatized by Islamic terrorism for decades (if not centuries), Russians suffer by degree more from that curious pathology of quasi-Stockholm Syndrome oar Battered Wife Syndrome in response to Muslims.

      I.e., we should not be surprised that Putin and Russians in general are, in fact, rather soft in their approach to the Muslim threat (after the 100th suicide bombing on them in the 90s, then later more and more, including Beslan, you’d think Russians would have rounded up all Muslims and put them in a Gulag or shipped them off to some icy tundra. The fact that they still suffer millions of Muslims within their broad borders shows that Russians are approximately no less PC MC than the rest of the West.

      • Cranky says

        Apr 23, 2014 at 7:32 am

        Of course, the Russian Federation has to allow for the fact that it has approximately nine million Muslims as citizens, but most of these tend to be far better educated than Muslims from elsewhere in the world, thanks to an excellent education system that goes back to the Soviet era, and tend to not follow the illiterate and semi-illiterate tendencies of Muslims elsewhere in the world. However, Cultural Marxism is not Marxism, it is neo-Marxism, and even Lenin opposed it.

        • voegelinian says

          Apr 23, 2014 at 2:48 pm

          We have plenty of evidence now to know that “better educated” is irrelevant in assessing the threat of Muslims.

  29. Mike C says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 8:24 pm

    I thought Robert could have done a better job explaining the difference between the violent passages in the Koran vs Bible. The biblical violent passages describe violent stories much like a documentary, unlike the Koran which commands and encourages its readers to commit violence. There is a huge difference between describing violence and commanding its readers to violence.

    I understand that explaining the real causes of jihad in a simple way for most people to understand is not a easy thing to do, especially in an interview.

    • Robert Spencer says

      Apr 20, 2014 at 10:03 pm

      This was one of the things they cut out of the interview as broadcast.

      • Mike C says

        Apr 20, 2014 at 11:31 pm

        Thanks Robert for setting me straight, such a shame that RT edited the video, keep up your amazing work !

      • Mike C says

        Apr 20, 2014 at 11:39 pm

        i just realized that you explained the issue of violent passages in the Bible vs Koranic in the very first paragraphs of this article. Please excuse my laziness. Ill be sure to read the article before commenting.

  30. E H says

    Apr 20, 2014 at 8:57 pm

    Robert Spencer says:

    “I requested the full tape, rather than this selectively edited version, but RT would not release it to me. ”

    That’s why Pamela Geller makes her own tape on each interview. Robert Spencer should wisen up and do the same.

  31. joeb says

    Apr 21, 2014 at 4:25 am

    “Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.”

  32. sujith says

    Apr 21, 2014 at 4:39 am

    Robert , Next time someone talks about “moderate Islam” quote erdogan and if necessary talk about the “moderate ” Nidal Hassan the Ford hood , Army psychiatrist who was moderate till he decided its time for jihadi , or the Pakistani NY times Bomber , son of Pakistan army Official, working as software programmer a “moderate” who decided its time to do his duty for islam and do jihad and kill some kafirs.

    Both these exposes the fraud about “moderate ” Muslim and Poverty is the cause of Jihad………….”foreign Policy ” B.S Just ask the Interviewer how is it that Islamic jihad has continued for 1400 years even before USA was discovered .

  33. joeb says

    Apr 21, 2014 at 4:59 am

    Heh, heh. Her closing line is absolutely priceless, giving Spencer no comeback after he made her look foolish in large part.

    I don’t think she did her research properly. Because Spencer is anti-jihad, she presumed he was going to be some sort of republican neo-con who favoured invading and flattening the entire islamic world. She had one American foreign policy lined up after another to beat him with, but all to no avail. Funny. She got it so wrong. But I enjoyed it overall, it was a good ding-dong.

  34. judith roth says

    Apr 21, 2014 at 8:42 am

    She was bordering on the hysterical. Kudos to you Robert, you slaughtered her.

  35. Geordie says

    Apr 21, 2014 at 9:38 am

    The cold war is over. Sadly, Russia with whom we should now be allied. Is engaged in a battle of words and sanctions with the USA, UK, EU and NATO. Her attitude can be summarised with one word. Ukraine.

    We need Russian support in the war against Islam.

  36. R. Craigen says

    Apr 21, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    Excellent debate, Robert. I’ll give the lady credit — she raised many of the standard arguments being used, and we should be grateful that she provided you with this opportunity to make a clear response to them. It is unusual to see hostile interviews in which you are given the airspace to make complete points. So they get credit in my book. You also debated in a most civil fashion and came across extremely well.

    It is really too bad they trimmed the debate of elements where you evidently dominated (even more than in the broadcast segments). I encourage you and others with the opportunity to do so to make every effort to acquire the unedited tapes for release.

    An alternative (with a low probability but … they might be shamed into it) might be to have them post the full interview themselves on their website — some media outlets are open to this sort of thing, especially when there is question of misrepresentation, and they wish to make clear what they’ve done to an interview and why. Of course, RT might not be particularly eager to do so in this case …

    • Know Thy Enemy says

      Apr 21, 2014 at 1:57 pm

      Yours is the most unbiased comment in the whole thread. I wish there were a ‘+1’ button 🙂

      • voegelinian says

        Apr 22, 2014 at 2:34 pm

        How is one “biased” against appeasers of Nazis (or, in the case of Muslims, worse)?

        • Know Thy Enemy says

          Apr 22, 2014 at 3:29 pm

          I don’t think Oksana Boyko is a appeaser of Muslims. She seems genuinely unaware of the true nature of Islam, and only knows what the hard working Islamic propagandists feed her.

          As R Craigen and many other posters have pointed out, lots of non-Muslims believe the same about Islam/Muslims as Oksana. They also point out that Oksana, whether she agrees with Robert or not, let him make his statements on the subject, something that most other MSM hosts refuse to do.

          It is because these posters recognize these things that I called their comments unbiased (for/against Oksana).

  37. CWR says

    Apr 21, 2014 at 1:57 pm

    Excellent! Very logical and thorough. Robert is so good at dissecting various false arguments. Wonderful job!

  38. Rob says

    Apr 21, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    Great showing Robert, you stood up to her & her editors really well.

    Poor girl had to follow her bosses party line & both got mauled.

    To her credit she was polite & let you speak, unlike many would have done in the western media.

  39. Eddie says

    Apr 21, 2014 at 2:12 pm

    Jihad teaching started more than 10 centuries before the US was even discovered.

    So, the armies of Mohamed and his gang ( Amr bin Al-Aas, Khlaed Al-Walid etc..), went to Egypt, North Africa, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Spain, Sicily, Malta, India as a reaction to whose foreign policy??

    Was the Quran re-written recently after more than dozen centuries to counter the US foreign policy?

    Had the Muslims have more military power than the west, they would have attacked the west and destroyed it head-on as they have done in their previous battles.

    Not having an army that can conquer Europe, Russia and USA, they resort to deception, manipulation and Terrorism rather than a one-time massive attack.

    -Another point about the BS of “muslims and non-muslims living side by side peacefully”. This only happens if the non-muslim accept to be treated as an inferior creatures, do not ask for equal rights, and submit to extortion, rape, injustice, public insults etc.. Or of that muslim society happens to be ignorant of Islam or they are superficial believers. (compare Malaysia 30 years ago, and now, after thousands of Malaysian students went to Al-Azhar to get real Islamic “moderate” education”

    Ask anyone who has grown up up in a muslim majority country. This by the way starts in Kindergarten. This is the main stream culture (period)

    I have lots of peaceful “muslim” friends since childhood. Most of them admitted to me at different points of our relationship that they do not believe in Islam, and if it weren’t for pressure (by parents, bosses, sport coaches, peers etc..) they would not join prayers. I was always sworn not to tell anyone. (not even own spouse, family, neighbors etc..)

  40. tpellow says

    Apr 21, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    Excellent, Robert.

    The ignorance of, and apologetics for Islam are global.

  41. Clare says

    Apr 21, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    Very nicely paced interview, really interesting. Loved the gorgeous, knowing smile that appeared at 5:42, and again at 16:49…that Robert knew what she going to say and, indeed, cleared the fog within a few sentences. It was a relief for the interviewer to not cut across Robert at every turn.

  42. Tycho says

    Apr 21, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    Mr Spencer, I salute you Sir! You are one in a million and I hope you appear more and more on mainstream TV, especially TV that we can see in Europe and the UK, where you were banned PRECISELY because no one can get past your intellect when it comes to discussing Islamic theology.

  43. gravenimage says

    Apr 21, 2014 at 7:21 pm

    One of RT’s main purposes is to slam the US and Israel, Oksana Boyko was an ignorant or meretricious interviewer, and the edit was clearly slanted.

    That being said, I’m glad RT is covering this at all. Despite working under such handicaps, Robert Spencer made an excellent showing, and I’m hoping that many people who might not otherwise have seen him will on the strength of this interview seek out more information on the true nature of the Jihad threat. Perhaps some of them will find their way here to Jihad Watch.

  44. nacazo says

    Apr 21, 2014 at 9:19 pm

    OB: Hello and welcome to Worlds Apart. This week mark(s?) the first anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing which according to a newly leaked intelligence report was all Russia’s fault. The investigation concluded that with the information at hand there was nothing the FBI or other agencies could have done to prevent the Tsarnaev brothers from implementing their deadly plot. But it’s curt? of the question of whether they should have known more. Well, to try and answer these I’m now joined by Robert Spencer an investigative journalist and a researcher of Islam inspired terroris(m?). Mr. Spencer thank you very much for your time.

    RS: Thank you for having me on.

    OB: Now, this latest report by the US Inspector General puts all the blame on Russia for not sharing everything they had on the Tsarnaev brothers but it does recognize that the Russians raised the alarm and, according the New York Times, the Russian authorities described the elder Tsarnaev as quote “a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer who was about to join some unspecified underground groups”. I wonder why do you think it didn’t sound suspicious enough for the FBI because the threat is apparently on the surface?

    RS: The idea that Russia is responsible for this because they didn’t give enough information to the FBI is absolutely ridiculous. The fault lies entirely with the FBI and the responsibility lies entirely with the FBI. The Russians did tell the FBI all that they needed to know by saying that Tsarnaev was a follower of radical Islam who had tried to join underground groups and, mind you, underground groups in Dagestan. The only underground groups in Dagestan are Islamic jihad terror groups. So the Russians essentially told the FBI that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was an Islamic jihadist. That ought to have been enough for them to keep him under very close surveillance. It was not. It was their failure.

    OB: Well, what is also interesting is that The New York Times also mentions that at the time American law enforcement officials believed that Mr. Tsarnaev posed a far greater danger to Russia than to the United States as if that was a good enough reason for not investigating him further. For all the talk about this global nature of terrorism, it seems that the American approach still remains very parrochial. Is if it’s Russia’s problem then ok let it be.

    RS: This comes from the American willfull ignorance about the jihad threat. The American government, the Barack Obama administration is dedicated to the idea that there is essentially no jihad threat at all. And that what the… what various nations face are a series of various nationalistic insurgencies. And so it was not… it was against their official dogma to identify Tsarnaev as an Islamic jihadist who would be a threat to anyone but Russia because in the view of the Obama administration the Chechen jihadists in Dagestan and Chechnya and the surrounding areas are only interested in Russia. They wouldn’t possibly be interested in striking in the United States. This is because of the Obama administration scrubbing of counter terror training materials of any mention of Islam and jihad in connection with terrorism and its absolute unwillingness to face the reality that there is a jihad imperative that involves violence against the non-believers in general wherever they may be. And because the Obama administration is committed to ignoring that and denying and downplaying it, they had to classify Tamerlan Tsarnaev as only a Chechen insurgent who was involved with Russia, couldn’t possible conceive of the possibility that he would be wanting to strike the United States.

    OB: Umhum. Well you just mentioned the American administration’s tendency to underestimate the threat posed by jihadists or by terrorists. And I remember the times when Chechen or Dagestani terrorists used to be referred in the United States as freedom fighters. But I wonder if one factor contributing to this problem is overestimation of Russia as a threat, essentially seen Russians as more of an enemy than jihadists themselves.

    RS: Yes, well certainly of course there is the whole history of the cold war. But Barack Obama is no cold war heir. Barack Obama is somebody who has been embarrassed on the world stage by Vladimir Putin more than once. And he certainly not going to want to in that light do the Russians any favors or portray them in a good light. What he’s trying to do with the Boston bombing is deflect attention away from the manifest failure of the FBI and the failure of the FBI resulting from its willfull ignorance about the jihad threat. And so the Russians are an easy and convenient scapegoat for him to blame in their place since, ironically enough, because of the fact that the Russians gave the FBI the initial intelligence about the Tsarnaev brothers but then declined to give the FBI more information. They didn’t need to give the FBI more information . The Russians have no responsibility to do the Americans’ intelligence work for them. And the idea that they’re responsible for the failures of American intelligence is patently absurd. But it’s, it’s… it was a very easy thing for him to do. Barack Obama has a history of trying to deflect responsibility away from all of his many failures and to blame everyone but himself for the fact that his administration is one long train wreck.

    OB: Well ah, talking about deflecting responsibility, you are a very impopular figure in some of the Muslim circles both in the United States and in Britain for suggesting that the qur’an contains some passages that condone or encourage violence against non-believers. And ah, well many people can respond to that’s that Bible too has those violent messages especially the old testament. So is it really a problem of the book rather than of a small but growing group of readers who misinterpreted in the way that is not consistent with the teachings as a whole.

    RS: If they’re misinterpreting it, they are misinterpreting it on a global scale. There are jihad groups mandating and teaching and acting out, carrying out acts of violence against unbelievers in Indonesia, in the Phillippines, in Thailand, in Burma, in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Nigeria, in Chechnya and Dagestan as you know, in all over the world. And they’re all misunderstanding Islam in exactly the same way. If I am unpopular with these groups for pointing out… with American and British authorities as well for pointing out that the qur’an contains passages of violence. Well all they have to do is open the book themselves and read it. I didn’t write the qur’an. But the reality of the situation is this: it is certainly true that the Bible contains violent passages but they are fundamentally different in character from the violent passages in the qur’an. The qur’an’s passages exhorting believers to commit acts of violence are open ended and universal.

    OB: But Mr. Spencer with all due respect the way people convert to those violent ideologies is not through qur’anic scholarship. It is primarily through the feeling of being intimidated, or being oppressed, or being denied basic fairness. And if we look at the reporting of the… on the Tsarnaev brothers, it is clear that they had plenty of grievances against the United States and American policies in many of the countries that you mention as home for terrorist attacks. So I wonder if in placing all the blame on Islam or jihad as a vehicle for facilitating that anger you are actually ignoring the root cause of that anger which is the brutality of American foreign policy.

    RS: Well with all due respect, your question betrays an ignorance of Islam because in reality the reason why these grievances are retailed and why the Tsarnaev brothers and well as many other islamic jihadists have pointed to various alleged grievances in order to justify their actions is because defensive jihad is the only jihad that’s legitimate in Islam today in the absence of a caliphate in Sunni Islam. There is… every jihad has to be justified as a response to enormities by infidels. The offensive jihad, jihad that is waged simply as a consequence of the unbelievers being unbelievers is something that it can only be authorized by the caliph and there is no caliph. The caliphate is been abolished, it was abolished rather in 1924. And so the question becomes if these grievances were all satisfied would the jihad go away? And then obviously the answer is no because in the… the experience of the jihad terrorists themselves they simply would find another one and when their grievances have been redressed then they make other demands.

    OB: Mr. Spencer, Mr. Spencer I think that we’re really going into the hypotheticals here because…

    RS: No, actually not. The…no, not in the hypothetical in the least. The Palestinians had their grievances redressed many times. As a matter of fact, most notably, say, you can take the case of Gaza, the Gaza withdrawal. And in Gaza, the idea was that if the Israelis left Gaza and there was no more occupation in Gaza, the Gazans would go back to their normal life and everything would be ok. And I predicted and some others did as well that instead it would become a jihad base for renewed jihad attacks against Israel. And it did, that’s exactly what happened.

    OB: But I don’t know when you were in Gaza the last time. It’s certainly not the paradise on Earth. The living conditions in Gaza are very, very difficult and many would argue that this is exactly what is leading indoctrination. But coming back to the American foreign policy, because I think it is an important part of the narrative, Isn’t America’s narrative itself just as open to interpretation and manipulation because, you know, all this rhethoric about America’s need or obligation to intervene, America’s exceptionalism, that could be construed as supremacist. While this idea of spreading democracy around the world, that could also be interpreted as a form of jihad, jihad waged by democracy.

    RS: Look you’re not going to…I’m not a defender of American foreign policy. I’m not a fan of American foreign policy. Im think American foreign policy is outstandingly wrongheaded. But the reality is… is that when islamic jihadis are waging jihad warfare against the Phillipinos and against the Thais and so on, that has nothing to do with American foreign policy. The idea that all jihad is because of American foreign policy is immediately refuted by the fact that so much jihad is being waged in areas where the Americans don’t have a presence. And as far as Gaza goes, the conditions in Gaza being terrible is simply jihadi propaganda. And if you look at the actual images from Gaza and you see luxury hotels and markets overflowing with food, and so on and if you think about the billions of dollars of aid that flow in there, the idea that there’s some terrible conditions there, and it’s an outdoor concentration camp is belied by the facts. But one of the things the jihadis are very sophisticated at is deceptive propaganda.

    OB: Well, ah, Mr. Spencer I’ve visited Gaza just a year ago and I beg to disagree with your description of it. Then, I don’t know about you but I certainly wouldn’t like to live in Gaza. I think many of the people there suffer. But the main point here is Islam. And I think you are using the terms Islam and jihad somehow interchangeably. And Islam is of course, you know, a very large global religion. One out of every four people on this planet are ah… is a muslim. So if all of them wanted to impose some sort of subjugation on non-muslims I bet they would have done it in no time. But it is again many Western powers that intervene in the muslim countries and therefore give jihadis a reason to recruit many many more youths to their cause.

    RS: They do recruit. And they recruit by means of the qur’anic teachings that exhort to jihad. This is why one of the most widely circulated pamphlets about jihad, that you can find readily on the Internet, is called “Jihad the forgotten obligation”. Because so many muslims are not waging jihad, so many muslims are ignoring it, and jihad groups are exploiting that and saying: look, is in the qur’an, is in the teachings of Mohammed and you’re not doing it, you need to get with it. And they do make recruits on that basis.

    OB: But I wonder when you put the blame squarely on Islam and the qur’an aren’t you actually engaging in a form of scapegoating similar to the one that the FBI is engaged in, you know, blaming Russia for the Boston bombings. Aren’t you doing the same thing by blaming Islam for something that people with some twisted minds are doing.

    RS: No, actually not. What I’m doing is reporting accurately about what the islamic jihadis themselves explain as their motives and goals for their attacks. If you look… if you read closely their writings they do retail a lot of grievances but when you get past the grievances it’s all theology and it’s all based on the fact that they are fighting to…obey qur’anic imperatives to fight. And so the onus is on them and the people who are pointing to Islam as the source of violence are the islamic jihadis. I’m merely reporting that they do.

    OB: Mr. Spencer we have to take a very short break now but when we come back: jihad and the war on terror seems to be a match made in heaven but who is the creator? That’s coming up in a few moments on Worlds Apart.

    BREAK

    OB: Welcome back to Worlds Apart where we are discussing the origins of jihad with journalist Robert Spencer. Mr. Spencer in the first part of the program I mentioned that you often use the words Islam and jihad interchangeably and yet Islam is a religion of many faces and Islam of the Gulf is very different from the Islam of Syria or the Islam of China. And people living in those countries, muslims living in those countries are sometimes more different from one another than muslims and christians living side by side so when you talk about jihad and islam as synonyms what strain of Islam you are talking about?

    RS: I don’t know what you’re talking about. This is a ridiculous question. I’ve never used Islam and jihad as synonyms, ever, not on this program and nowhere else.

    OB: Well just a couple of minutes ago you suggested that it is the inherent nature of the qur’an that allows it to be interpreted in a way to encourage violence. I think that’s the whole argument that you are making here.

    RS: That doesn’t mean that Islam and jihad are interchangeable. Islam is much bigger than jihad. It’s a ridiculous idea, it’s a ridiculous assertion. In any case, the jihad doctrine does mandate warfare against unbelievers. I didn’t make this up. This is something that is taught by all the sects and schools of islamic jurisprudence. There are certainly many muslims around the world who don’t pay any attention to that and that’s great. But you cannot name a single mainstream sect of Islam that does not teach that it is part of the responsibility of the Ummah, the muslim community worldwide, to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers. I challenge you to do so. The Ahmadi muslims they sanction, they counsel peace but they are considered to be heretics and are violently persecuted by the other muslims in Pakistan and Indonesia because of this in part, and because they claim that there is another prophet after Mohammed, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

    OB: Well Mr. Spencer as you said Islam is a very very big religion and there are may scholars who preach tolerance and peace, Mevlana Rumi being one of them, the sufis, his teaching is all about embracing people of different religions, of different races, non believers, etc. But I think the strain of Islam that you refer to is the takfir ideology which is espoused by wahabbis or by salafists that indeed recognizes that infidels could be and should be killed. And I wonder if that sort of Islam is actually supported by America’s closest ally Saudi Arabia and when it talks about fighting jihad it seems that the United States is trying to fight the war on terror with one hand but at the same time feed it with another because again Saudi Arabia is a very very influential country and all the money that it has it often uses it to spread the kind of Islam that you’re talking about.

    RS: You know, once again if you wanted a guest who was going to defend American foreign policy, you got the wrong guy. I think that the alliance with the Saudis is ridiculous, it is self-defeating, and ultimately it should have been ended long ago and I hope that ultimately one day it will be. The idea that the Saudis are even any kind of reliable ally for the United States is ridiculous. But also the idea that only the takfiris, the salafis are preaching that it is part of the responsibility of the muslims to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers that is not borne out by the facts. It is not invented by the wahabbis.

    OB: Now, Mr. Spencer, there are many examples of predominantly muslim societies where muslims and christians and people of no faith live side by side. One such country was Syria for example and then nowadays it is the American government and the American, you know, legislators both on the left and on the right who seem to be supporting rebel groups who want… who want to impose shariah law on Syria. So, again, when you talk about jihad I wonder why aren’t you a bit more forthcoming, a bit more vocal about naming the main sponsors of jihad which are Saudi Arabia and the United States.

    RS: When did I ever deny this? I’ve written many many times on my website jihadwatch. There are many posts that denounce the United States support for the jihadis in Syria that point out exactly what you point out that they are essentially aiding Al-qaeda. That the enemy who hit the United States on 9-11 is now being supplied with weapons by the United States, by the support of Barack Obama and John McCain, bipartisan cluelessness and complicity in evil. You’re right that muslims and christians lived side by side in harmony in Syria but you contradict yourself, and it’s a very illuminating way, by saying that the jihadis want to impose shariah islamic law in Syria. That is absolutely correct, that is what they want to do. But that means that you know that islamic law is… has not been in force in Syria under the Assad regime and that’s why muslims and christians have been able to live side by side in peace and harmony because the Assad regime allowed more rights for christians than islamic law does.

    OB: But Mr. Spencer isn’t it also the case that ordinary people, ordinary muslims or ordinary christians they don’t really go into all those theological details. The ordinary everyday interpretation of Islam is much simpler. And I wonder if this idea of subjugation of non-believers, you know, my sense from traveling a lot around the muslim world is that it is predominantly the domain of Islamic sholars rather than the islamic community, islamic ummah in general.

    RS: Of course, people are people everywhere. Human nature is everywhere the same. Millions of muslims, probably tens and hundreds of millions, they don’t want to live under islamic law. They rejected it in Egypt when the Muslim Brotherhood tried to impose it. And millions of muslims took to the streets to topple the Muslim Brotherhood regime there just last summer. Islamic law is something that is… denies equality of rights to women, denies equality of rights to non-muslims, equality of rights to gays, and denies the freedom of speech, mandates the death penalty for those who leave islam and many muslims don’t want to live that way. The reality is that people are people everywhere. The teaching of Islam is one thing and every individual believer is quite another. They may have a very close relationship with Islamic teaching and want to follow it out, or they may not pay attention to it, or they may not like parts of it. And so to point to muslims and say well you see so many of them are nice guys that must mean that Islam doesn’t have a problem is merely to stick your head in the sand and to deny the reality that Islam does have these doctrines of violence and supremacism and is in dire need of reform by these muslims of good will.

    OB: I want to ask you something different though. You mentioned al-qaeda earlier on in the show and we know that al-qaeda was empowered initially at least empowered by the United States in fighting against the soviets in Afghanistan and I wonder if this idea of jihad is sometimes being used in foreign policy for achieving goals that have absolutely nothing to do with religion or ideology simply to, you know, further one country’s national interest.

    RS: I’m not interested in defending American foreign policy. I opposed from the beginning the incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan. And so I’m just simply not going to take up a point. But the fact is that if you have enough respect for the jihadis, and I do, to read their actual literature, you will find that they are fighting not for any other goal except to impose islamic law. They have repeatedly stated this in Syria, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and everywhere else. And islamic law is a political as well as a religious system, no doubt about that, but it is obviously inextricable from Islam itself.

    OB: Mr. Spencer if we look around the world, if you look at the Middle East, if you look at North Africa, muslims kill each other more than representatives of any other religion so on that point alone it doesn’t seem that they want to really subjugate the entire world. They seem to be each other’s worst enemy and many scholars believe that maybe a direct outcome of the fight for the soul of Islam or for the mainstream interpretation of Islam that is going on around the world, you know, this fight between, you know, some of the more radicalized forces and some of the more secular or mainstream forces and I wonder if you agree that we are witnessing this fight and if you believe you have a stake in that fight.

    RS: Ah, the stake in the fight that muslims are waging with each other? It’s not really moderates against radicals, you know, it’s mostly sunnis versus shiites. And I don’t know if you’re aware of the meaning of the word takfiri that you used earlier but takfir is islamic excommunication, the declaration by one muslim group that another muslim group is not muslim and can therefore lawfully under islamic law be killed. These are all part of Islamic doctrine and so I find your question here again inexplicable and borderline ridiculous that because they’re a killing each other therefore they don’t want to kill us or because they’re killing each other therefore they don’t want to subjugate us. I don’t see how that follows.

    OB: Well, let me explain how that follows. What I mean is that there are different interpretations of Islam, some are more radical, some are more moderate, and if there is indeed a fight between more moderate and more radical strains of Islam and the more radical strain is being empowered and supported by, you know, some of the great political powers of the world why is not, why isn’t that relevant.

    RS: where do you see more moderate muslims fighting more radical muslims? Where exactly do you thing you see that.

    OB: Well I see it all around the Middle East. I see it in Syria. There are Sunnis fighting against Sunnis. There are Shias fighting against Shias in Iraq. I mean, I think for the Americans it may be easier to see it as Sunni versus Shia but I think what is really happening is a more radical ideology trying to take over the more tolerant and more peaceful meaning of Islam.

    RS: You know, for someone who is so critical of American foreign policy, you sound remarkably like John Kerry right now. The idea that the more moderate people in Syria are fighting the radicals sounds to me like the mainstream American analysis. That the Free Syrian Army is the good guys, the moderates. And they’re fighting against the Al-nusra front and others that are al-qaeda in Syria. And it’s certainly true, the Free Syrian Army is fighting against the al-qaeda elements and the Free Syrian Army is being supplied with weapons by the United States to do that but because the Free Syrian Army is fighting al-qaeda, it doesn’t mean they’re not jihadis themselves. It’s the Free Syrian Army that has gone into churches and ransacked them and terrorized and brutalized christians in christian areas of Syria. They’re hardly moderates.

    OB: Well Mr. Spencer I think you misconstrued my argument a little bit. I wonder if you do the same trick on Islam in general. But unfortunately this is all that we have time for. Unfortunately, we have to leave it there. I really appreciate your candor. And to our viewers, please keep the conversation going on our twitter, youtube and facebook pages. And I hope to see you here again, same place, same time, here on Worlds Apart.

    • John C. Barile says

      Apr 22, 2014 at 1:53 pm

      Thanks for posting this transcript, nacazo. I’m glad you give me the means to read Robert’s RT interview; I’m grateful to you.

  45. RD says

    Apr 22, 2014 at 5:17 am

    RT gave Robert an opportunity to speak. This lady is attractive, articulate for a non native speaker and was voicing all our thoughts. You think the BBC or Sky would have given Robert a space and addressed him as a “journalist” or “Mr”? Better RT than more mainstream channels like Al Jazeera … Expose the dogma, down with oil.

  46. cyhalothrin says

    Apr 22, 2014 at 6:42 am

    I think that maybe some of you are being a bit harsh on Oksana Boyko. As a journalist interviewing a controversial figure (ie Robert), it’s kind of her duty to make the interviewee work hard in defending his position. Robert certainly didn’t shrink from the task, and I would say he won the debate. If Oksana gave him an easy pass, she wouldn’t be doing her job.

    I do have to give Russia Today credit for at least doing this interview. This is not the kind of thing you are going to see on Fox News.

    • isntlam says

      Apr 22, 2014 at 8:53 am

      I suppose the test of her journalistic integrity would be whether she is also tough with the controversial figures her employer doesn’t agree with. Not whether she is tough with one interviewee.

      • isntlam says

        Apr 22, 2014 at 8:54 am

        I suppose the test of her journalistic integrity would be whether she is also tough with the controversial figures her employer [EDIT] DOESN’T DISAGREE with. Not whether she is tough with one interviewee.

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • Dave from San Antonio on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • janicevanguilder on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Boycott Turkey on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Yogi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • Hoi Polloi on Why so many Muslims can’t wait for Biden to get inaugurated

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.