Over at The Investigative Project on Terrorism today, there is a good review of my book Arab Winter Comes to America. You can order the book here. And the Kindle edition is here.
“Robert Spencer Defines the War Against Jihad,” by Andrew E. Harrod, IPT News, May 19, 2014:
“America is at war; and has been since at least September 11, 2001, but no one is really sure who with,” Robert Spencer writes in his recently released Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth about the War We’re In. Thankfully, Spencer’s important book makes a significant contribution in clarifying this catastrophic confusion.
That “Islam is a fundamentally peaceful religion” no different from…other faiths” in multicultural ecumenism, Spencer observes, forms a Western policy “cornerstone” and “cherished dogma of today’s political correct elites.” Yet President George W. Bush’s claim before Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, that al-Qaida terrorists “practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism” does not “become any truer for being oft repeated.”
“[U]unlike other modern faiths, Islam is a political religion” whose “comprehensiveness is often a matter for boasting among Islamic apologists” in comparison to “Christianity’s vague set of moral precepts,” Spencer writes. Such detail includes a “denial of basic rights…integral” to Islamic law despite attempted Muslim portrayals of sharia as “so amorphous as to defy characterization.” Islam’s death penalty for apostasy, for example, gives it something in common with cults, making leaving in one piece difficult.
Sharia interpretations “more compatible with Western pluralism and liberal democracy…have never gained any significant traction among Muslims.” However undesirable, centuries-old Islamic orthodoxy invariably and unsurprisingly has controlling legal authority.
“Jihad” in particular, “behind all the obfuscation and denial, is in fact primarily an Islamic doctrine of warfare,” drawn from the Qur’an’s “open-ended license to wage war against and plunder non-Muslims.” Despite various references to righteousness (e. g. Sura 5:8), the “Qur’an doesn’t teach that all are equal in dignity.” Rather, Islamic conversion can mean rejecting “nation and people as infidel” in favor of a “new loyalty instead to the supranational Islamic umma.”
Spencer offers plenty of examples, including Fort Hood terrorist Major Nidal Hasan had a “broad tradition within Islamic teaching” justifying his killings with “numerous proponents.” Although “not the only understanding of Islam…even the larger number of Muslims who do not adhere to it have failed to work in any effective way to rein it in.” Accordingly, “Al Qaeda and other groups like it make recruits among peaceful Muslims” as “exponents of true and authentic Islam.” Unfortunately, faith fundamentals in Islam do not necessarily favor freedom over sectarian force.
Indeed, Muslim groups have no programs demonstrating “how the true Islam eschews violence against and hatred of unbelievers,” Spencer criticizes. Similarly, “over twelve years” after 9/11, no “sincere and effective effort within mosques to expose and report those who hold to the beliefs that led to those attacks” has developed. Groups like the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) “are ready with the condemnations after arrests and explosions, but why wait passively?” Muslim communities must “demonstrate (not just enunciate) their opposition to jihad terror Islamic supremacism,” Spencer demands. Any silent Muslim majority in an oft-proclaimed “religion of peace” must preemptively speak out, both for its own credibility’s sake and for the wider community’s security.
A “Jihad against Talking about Jihad” by Muslim groups and others, meanwhile, brands as an “irrational hatred of Muslims and Islam” any “resistance to jihad” in attempts at “demoralization and marginalization.” Objective discussion of Islam’s less savory aspects has become the “third rail of American public discourse.” Here “tuxedoed barbarians” like the writer Reza Aslan, an Islamic Republic of Iran apologist, play a role, along with leading officials like President Barack Obama, who pledged in his June 4, 2009, Cairo address “to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam.” Obama “didn’t explain where in the Constitution he had found this awesome new responsibility,” Spencer says.
Not “changing…one iota,” Spencer himself went from being a government trainer in 2010 to government banning in 2013. The United Kingdom prohibited Spencer’s entry in June 2013 even as a Saudi sheikh who called violent jihad an “honor for the believer” entered. Earlier, in February 2013, Worcester, Mass. Catholic Bishop Robert McManus canceled Spencer’s appearance at a Massachusetts Catholic men’s conference before McManus underwent arrest for a drunken driving accident. “Apparently he smashes up cars, as well as reputations,” Spencer writes, “with a Daisy Buchanan-like confidence that someone else will clean up the mess.”
No “fringe position of cowardice and appeasement,” though, characterized McManus’ “mainstream” behavior. Amid jihadist assaults, the “politically correct establishment blames America itself, and even conservatives are not at all united.” U.S. Sen. John McCain’s defense of Huma Abedin, an aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with close familial ties to the Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood, “was reminiscent of the moral preening” by liberals in support of convicted Soviet spy Alger Hiss.
Significantly, American officials “misunderstand the problem they are facing and thus choose the wrong remedies to deal with it.” These “officials refuse to speak about ‘Islam’ and ‘terrorism’ in the same sentence” using “quite a lot of verbal and mental gymnastics when jihad terrorists start quoting Qur’an and other Islamic sources.” The Defense Department’s Fort Hood shooting report, for example, “doesn’t mention Islam even once.” Although “perfectly justified in sending informants into mosques and scrutinizing devout Muslims more closely than, say, Methodist grandmothers,” officials have thereby brought repeated lawsuits. Pursuing the mafia in Italian neighborhoods is apparently acceptable, but not Muslim terrorists in mosques.
By contrast, an April 2013 army briefing grouped the Muslim Brotherhood with “Evangelical Christianity” and “Ultra-orthodox” Judaism in a “politically correct trifecta of the three main monotheistic religions.” Despite such negative affirmative action, religious criminals, like perpetrators from various ethnic backgrounds, do not break down into politically correct, proportional quotas. Contrary to widespread Muslim violence, “Christians committing violence and quoting the New Testament to justify it exist today largely just in Hollywood movies.” Analogies with the “ideologically biased junk science” of “Lysenkoism” in Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union come to Spencer’s mind, while the “real scientists who told the truth” went “to the Gulag.”
Efforts against a “largely non-existent ‘Islamophobia'” (e. g. only 8 percent of religious hate crimes reported by the FBI in 2009 were against Muslims, 75 percent against Jews) receive foreign support from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The Obama administration joined with the OIC’s 57 majority-Muslim states (including “Palestine”) represented by Egypt in October 2009 to support a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution condemning religious “hatred” and “incitement.” Yet these words “are in the eye of the beholder—or, more precisely, in the eye of those empowered to make such determinations” in an “Orwellian world,” worries Spencer.
The “foremost obstacle” in confronting “Islamic supremacism,” Spencer concludes, is an “entrenched culture of self-hatred that denigrates anything and everything American and exalts the most inveterate America-haters as heroic underdogs.” Indeed, American failures in combatting jihadist agendas described by Spencer arise not from any superior Muslim might, but from failures of nerve. Islamic supremacists have fooled many Americans that they face not foreign, faith-based sectarian threats, but rather invocations of American equality principles for an oppressed Muslim minority. Yet a religious ideology can be no less dangerous than a secular ideology such as Communism. Those interested in avoiding dangers of varying plausibility presented in Spencer’s final “hysterical nightmare scenario” of an “America that is thoroughly cowed and subdued” would do well to read his book.
mortimer says
The mythology of the American government is that a silent majority of Muslims are pluralistic and democratic. The REVERSE IS TRUE.
PEW Research Center found that 65% of Muslims worldwide want discriminatory Sharia law and the same number wanted a Nazi-style CALIPHATE.
The mistaken idea that the American melting pot will absorb Islam is a wide-spread delusion, not just at the top of the US government and the glitterati, but at the bottom among ordinary people as well.
Why is that? They do not know the PEW studies and they are unacquainted with Sharia law…and they do not wish to LEARN about them either!
Confirmation bias or selective perception is at work BIG TIME! And CRAFTY mullahs manipulate the confirmation bias of such people every time they say…’Such-and-such terrorists have NOTHING to do with Islam’.
Orthodox Sunni jihadists have EVERYTHING to do with Islam.
mortimer says
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/religious-hostilities-reach-six-year-high/
Jay Boo says
The Obama / Hillary squad was loud and clear about (protecting) the ‘free’ Libyan army so they could topple their government in a coup. Supposeed ly The US was their to protect some of those same (silent majority of pluralistic and democratic Muslims).
A great effort and millions of dollars were spent to support Islamists to overthrow the government of Libya but when the Islamists no longer needed the US they attacked the US Embassy Obama and Hillary abandoned fellow Americans request for help and hide behind a film.
“WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE”
—- Hillary’s own words
Jay Boo says
TREASON
OBAMA AND HILLARY
Brian Hoff says
The Caliphate will come back when the real 5 permant member of the UN support the return of the Caliphate. The France Government with they ban on the Hajib and burqa is the real Nazi like government today.
Jax Tolmen says
Nah, the French are just smarter than the rest of us. Haven’t you seen the signs all about, the ones with the pretty pictures of Hitler and his close friend? The Muslim?
I think Muslims are the real Nazis. They even hate Jews as much as the Nazis. You’re a Nazi Brian. Does it feel good hating other people? I bet it does, why don’t you go beat your wife because she missed a spot on the floor. You can hate her too, because she is only worth half as much as you are.
You people make me sick.
gravenimage says
“Brian Hoff” wrote:
The Caliphate will come back when the real 5 permant member of the UN support the return of the Caliphate.
…………………………………..
This is an odd assertion from “DefenderofIslam”—why would Infidels want to see the return of the Caliphate?
And I suppose Muslims are too damn lazy to reform the Caliphate themselves, and want the Kuffar to do it for them.
The reference to the Caliphate might seen odd here to begin with—but I suppose “DefenderofIslam” is making the point that what we face today is just “defensive” Jihad, since only the Caliphate can declare offensive Jihad.
This is mostly a distinction without a difference, though, since pious Muslims have no problem characterizing bloody assaults on pizzarias, grade schools, and shopping malls as “defensive”.
More:
The France Government with they (sic) ban on the Hajib and burqa is the real Nazi like government today.
…………………………………..
Firstly, it is an utter lie that France has banned the Hijab—they have only banned face coverings in public places. Hence, this only effects the Niqab and Burqa.
Slaves of Allah can wear a Hijab or even a full Chador there—but cannot cover their faces because of the security risk. The ban also covers masks, ski masks, helmets, and balaclavas.
Also notice his assertion that France is the “real Nazi like government today”—does DoI have any problem with victims being sentenced to death for “blasphemy” and “witchcraft”, for women to be imprisoned for resisting forced marriage and wife beating under “Hudud” laws, or for the stoning to death of gay people and rape victims?
Of course not—because all *those* horrors are perfectly Islamic. Damn barbarian.
Angemon says
Yeah, french are like, nazis and shit. It’s not like they were invaded by nazi germany and fought against it, just look at the AFDI bus ads with the pic of de Gaulle and Hitler hobnobbing…sarc/off
Tells us Brian, who would lead the caliphate? A saudi wahabi? An irani shiite? A paki sunni? A british salafi? An american ahmedi? Maybe you should tell your coreligionists to get their shit together first.
Fitz says
‘Incitement to religious hatred’ is an ambiguous term. Whose ‘hatred’ and whose ‘incitement’? Much demagoguery nowadays tends to come from Islamic leaders themselves who incite the faithful to hate us, with all the sanctioning they need provided for by the Qur’an. Henceforth I propose we call ‘The Spencer Doctrine’ any and all attempts to make adherents or apologists for Islam acknowledge the violent jihadic passages in that book and to renounce or denounce them in the name of universal enlightenment values. Failure to do so, as Robert states, merely strengthens the religiously hateful, making for a more painful reckoning further on down the line.
Angemon says
“Significantly, American officials “misunderstand the problem they are facing and thus choose the wrong remedies to deal with it.””
“What do you mean, antibiotics and penicillin? What this man needs is more leeches and bloodletting. I’m a doctor, can’t you see I’m wearing a white coat and a stethoscope?”
Charli Main says
When Muslims living in London, Paris, New York and elsewhere take to the streets in their millions and condemn violent Jihad and Jihadists as un- Islamic and bringing shame on Islam, then I might concede the existence of “moderate, peaceful” Muslims.
IN the meantime, I won´t be holding my breath——
Salah says
They’ve done in Egypt, and only in Egypt!
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-end-of-muslim-brotherhood.html
And as a result of this…
‘Christians feel that Egypt has become their homeland again’
http://gulfnews.com/news/region/egypt/egypt-s-christians-keep-fingers-crossed-for-next-president-1.1331615
Wellington says
I welcome your posts here at JW, Salah, and have profited by reading them, but forgive me for saying that I find you a bit too optimistic at times. Understand, I hope you’re right but Islam is spiritual fascism to its very core and thus I don’t see how it can ever be reformed to be compatible with true freedom of speech, real freedom of religion and complete equality under the law.
I don’t deny that a hell of a lot of Muslims might not enforce all the liberty-crushing aspects of Islam, but Islam’s theological blueprint in all its terrible particulars is there nonetheless and, besides, there will always be a certain percentage of Muslims who will be devout throughout and thus continue the death cult begun by Mohammed. Even if only 10% of the world’s Muslims were such (and I doubt it will ever be so low), that would still translate into well over a hundred million spiritual fascists worldwide. I’d appreciate your thoughts on this.
Salah says
@Wellington,
Please check out this recent comment of mine:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/robert-spencer-on-the-larry-elder-show-islam-a-religion-of-peace/comment-page-1#comment-1063082
I’m not optimistic about reforming Islam, it’ll never happen. I’m optimistic about Muslims rejecting violent Islam. This is the first step towards apostasy.
Wellington says
Thanks, Salah, for your response. I see now we are very much on the same page. My regrets for misunderstanding you before. Take care.
mariam rove says
yes, Islam can not be reformed. You have a better chance of finding a cure for cancer than reforming Islam. M
Walter Sieruk says
The real problem is Islam. One ofthe way to handle this problem is to be specific which is to define what Islam really is. Of the many negative ways that Islam may be described, one of them is that Islam be be defined as a tyrannical system of religious/ political mind control that has much power over the lives of many people around the world. With this stated,it’s thus very fitting to cite the wisdom of the words of Thomas Jeferson. For Mr. Jefferson declared “I have sworn upon the alter of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
Mirren10 says
To Salah:
“Muslims rejectimg *violent* (my emphasis : Mirren) islam”.
There is no peaceful islam, except stealth jihad/lawfare, et al. That’s OK, is it ?
The only mohammedan I would ever trust is one who *openly* apostasises.
Salah says
“There is no peaceful islam”
I agree 100%
“The only mohammedan I would ever trust is one who *openly* apostasises.”
I also agree 100%, but bear in mind that apostasy doesn’t usually happen overnight. It’s a journey, a long and dangerous one. There’s always a first step. Rejecting violence is a good one.
Frank Livingston says
I pray you can update your article: “Pentagon fires key specialist on Islamic law and jihad after complaints by pro-Muslim officials” Robert Spencer Jan 4, 2008 because, in my opinion, this lead to Benghazi. The firing of the DoD/JCS Shariah/Islamic law expert, Stephen Coughlin. He wrote an analysis of the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan to destroy us and it can be read at IPT. Here is a quote [Coughlin] cautioned the Pentagon to be wary of future outreach programs with specific U.S. Islamist organizations after evidence showed they were part of a long-range Muslim Brotherhood plan to subvert “American institutions through outreach, strategic deception and perception management. To undertake outreach with known identified organizations without knowledge of their objectives is to run the extreme risk of strategic manipulation by declared Jihad entities in ways that fulfill stated Muslim Brotherhood objectives as enumerated in the Memorandum.”
http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/91
Look at the letters five congressional representatives sent to five OIG officers to investigate the depth the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated into our government agencies. Take time to read “House Members Seek National Security Answers” and the letters and articles. http://bachmann.house.gov/IGLetters
Read the 16-page letter from Rep. Bachmann to the Muslim Brotherhood’s own congressman, Rep. Ellison. http://bachmann.house.gov/sites/bachmann.house.gov/files/UploadedFiles/Letter_to_Rep._Ellison.pdf