Nothing ought to be plainer, and yet nothing is more obscured, than the meaning of the Islamic concept of jihad. Even if its meaning were at all unclear, every day Islamic jihadists do their best to remind us of what it is. The confusion arises, of course, from the fact that jihad and related concepts are the object of a massive misinformation and disinformation campaign, making books such as William Kilpatrick’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad so vitally necessary.
Kilpatrick covers that propaganda campaign ably in this lucid and genial book, which not only explains from Islamic texts and teachings why ISIS and Boko Haram (and other jihad terror groups) are not only not un-Islamic, as is frequently claimed, but quintessentially Islamic – for the Qur’an, as Kilpatrick explains, commands jihad, and Muhammad, who is considered in Islamic theology to the perfect man, to be imitated by Muslims whenever, wherever, and however possible, not only commanded jihad warfare but waged it himself.
Kilpatrick also helpfully takes up common objections to this line of argumentation – notably the question of why, if Islam really teaches warfare against unbelievers and their subjugation under the hegemony of Islamic law, most Muslims are peaceful. “Peaceful Islam,” Kilpatrick points out, “which Western leaders are counting on to win out over the more violent versions touted by the terrorists, is a holdover from the long-dead colonial era.” Indeed so: the formulation of jihad as primarily an interior spiritual struggle was touted by Islamic scholars at the height of the colonial period, so as to allow for accommodation of the colonial occupiers, who weren’t going away in the foreseeable future. Once they did abscond, however, the conditions that called forth such accommodative teachings no longer existed, and Saudi-funded jihad preachers traversed the globe calling Muslims back to jihad, “the forgotten obligation” of warfare against unbelievers.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad shows that this transition had nothing to do with poverty among Muslims or discrimination against them, and indeed, that no conciliation or concession on the part of Western non-Muslims will ever blunt the force of the jihad imperative, since it is rooted in Islamic theological principles that are not susceptible to the prevailing political winds.
The most valuable sections, however, of this useful and engaging book are the second, “Jihad Without Bombs,” and the third, “Defeating Jihad.” For even as violent jihad becomes an increasingly common feature of the Western landscape, more insidious and damaging in the long run may be the stealth jihad that proceeds due to the appeasement policies that Western governments indefatigably pursue, and the politically correct straitjacket on the public discourse that has for well over a decade now hindered, and usually prevented outright, honest discussion in the mainstream media of the nature and magnitude of this threat. Kilpatrick points out that “according to Reporters Without Borders, the U.S. has dropped to forty-sixth place in press freedom.” One of the principal ways in which the press today reveals itself to be a mouthpiece of moneyed elites is in its deliberate attempts to obfuscate the ideological roots of the jihad threat, and its ongoing campaign, every time there is a jihad attack, to inundate us with articles explaining that Islam is really quite wonderful and has nothing to do with this violence, nothing at all.
But Kilpatrick details how the media and governing elites are not in the least singular in appearing determined to foster complacency and ignorance among the people they should be enlightening and protecting. The churches are in on the act as well: “Christians,” writes Kilpatrick, “have been lulled into complacency by the oft-repeated emphasis on the similarities between their faith and the faith of Muslims” – an emphasis all too many Church leaders, including, of course, Pope Francis, relentlessly hammer home, heedless of the danger in which they are putting their flock by leaving them intellectually, spiritually, and physically defenseless in the face of an advancing and growing threat.
That’s why the most apposite sentence in this entire book is the second sentence of the chapter headed “Strategies for Victory”: “First we’ve got to get serious.” The West suffers from a collective lack of seriousness that could, in the end, be fatal. The frivolity is at the top, fueled by globalist internationalists who are using the complacency the media, the government and the Church are fostering for their own ends. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad is the perfect book for those who don’t know just how bad things are, and how likely they are to get even worse – as well as for all who wish to chart a way out of this madness. It can be done. William Kilpatrick does it, quite well, in this book.

linnte says
Oh GOOD! A new book! I am building quite a library and this will be an excellent addition. Thanks Mr. Spencer.
vladkoval says
Eureka! Cracked it! Bingo!
I was looking for it and I found it !
Recently I wrote about the Arabic term “kafir” and its etimology:
“”” I want to tell you something about the Arabic term “kafir”.
Actually, in Arabic “kfr” (3 letters) means “soil”. Thus, kafir means
“soiler” (farmer). (the letter alef added to first letter of Arabic
word normally is equal to English ending “-er” (turn-turner, shoot –
shooter etc)
As you know, In Koran Sura 57:20 it is used as “farmers”.
What is the connection between “a farmer” and “unbeliever”? Direct connection!
Let’s track the whole process visually. We need to imagine that we are
ancient Arabs, and we are watching a farmer’s activity:
1) a man is plowing up the soil – that’s why he is soiler, scarifier
(the man is kafr!)
2) the farmer is throwing a seed into the soil – that’s why he is
ungrateful (seeds come from soil as a gift to feed men, not to throw
it back) (the man he is kafr!)
3) the farmer is covering the seed with the soil – only here he is
literally “coverer”. ِAlso, “to cover a sin” in Arabic – “kafara an
al-zinb”.
4) the farmer in fact sacrificed the seed – everithing you don’t use
for yourself is sacrifice. (compare: lamb of atonement – kabsh
al-kafara, (jewish) Yom Kippur – Day of Attonement). (Sacrifice is
actually made to cover sins and thus to get atonement). (the man is
kafr – he is sacrificer). Note, that here the term is also applied to
a muslim – when he kills a non-muslim – he is sacrificing YOU – to his
deity – Allah.
6) and again: the farmer is throwing a seed into the soil – he is
rejecting, denying, refusing to accept the gift of soil – the seed.
Thus, before becoming a kafir “surah sahiha an al-islam (proper image
of islam)” must reach you first, and if you reject it – you’re become
a kafir.
Thus, as you see, it all comes from ancient tribal vision of farming.
The term “kafr” is negative and derogatory as much as farming was
considered to be negative activity in the perception of ancient Arabs.
And it doesn’t really mean “unbeliever”. Remember the cleaver with
engraved word on it “kafr”. Why would muslims engrave it there?
Because the cleaver is the tool for slaughtering – for sacrificing
non-muslims. The cleaver – is a kafir – the tool used for sacrificing
non-muslims.
I think better understanding of this term can help and is important.
Because if we show that we know the inner world of the foe in smallest
details – we can make the foe feel uncomfortable (at least). Too many
Westerners still view the term as some “miraculous word” having
derogatory meaning “unbeliever”. But it is not miraculous – it is
just a result of ancient Arabs’ ridiculous views on farming. “””
But even I after that I kept feeling that something was still missing.
The matter is, that all this time we’ve had our own Christian, Bibleical, 100% correct equivalent of “Kufr”
This is: ANATHEMA – (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathema)
Anathema in Arabic means – Cursation
http://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/anathema/
ًWhile “takfir” means “atonement”
http://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/تكفير/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir See also Anathema (You see, even Wiki after Takfir gives related article – Anathema)
http://m.wikiwordbook.info/tnkfi
In Islamic law, takfir or takfeer (Arabic: تكفير takfīr) refers to the practice of excommunication, one Muslim declaring another Muslim as kafir (non-believer).
A takfiri (Arabic: تكفيري takfīrī) is a Muslim who accuses another Muslim (or an adherent of another Abrahamic faith) of apostasy.
Takfir wal-Hijra (Arabic تكفير والهجرة, English “Excommunication and Exodus”, alternately “excommunication and emigration” or “ANATHEMA and exile”), was the popular name given to a radical Islamist group Jama’at al-Muslimin founded by Shukri Mustafa which emerged in Egypt in the 1960s as an offshoot of Muslim Brotherhood.
https://glosbe.com/en/fa/anathema – Takfir (Persian, Iran)
That’s why our message to the world doesn’t reach the goal – it’s all about wrong translation.
15 years I was thinking like that (I am sure millions are thinking like that) – ” muslims say they should kill non-muslims, unbelievers. I am not muslim. Though, at the same time they say they believe in the same God with Christians. I believe in God – ergo – I cannot be really unbeliever in their eyes, therefore muslims are not a threat for me”.
That’s what wrong translations give. If someone 15 years ago told me that muslims do not give a shit to wether you believe in God, or not, and that they view you as nothing but anathema (the word I know well what it means) – I would not be sympatizer of Islam.
We should refuse from the term “unbeliver or kafir” – it is not correct. It is really not correct. And it just confuses. We have our own exact equivalent – anathema, or he who is under anathema.
That changes the whole matter and gives clear picture of the problem
vladkoval says
Jihad Watch, my comment is OK, why is it awaiting moderation?
gravenimage says
vladkoval, whenever you have more than two links in a post, it must await moderation–this is to avoid spamming. It is automatic, and not a comment on content.
vladkoval says
OK, I see, thanks.
vladkoval says
Now read this:
Galatians 1:8New International Version (NIV)
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! (in Greek – under anathema, in Arabic – under Takfir!!!)
ASV But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema (!!! – Takfir)
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Galatians%201:8
As you see, what “Gospel” muslims preach? Isn’t other than “the one we preached to you”??
Koran says:
Jesus is not Son of God! – check
Jesus was not even crucified! – check
That’s enough to conclude – muslims are kafeers (anathematics!)
Now I see, that the Pope and ROC leader, and others – they both are just crooked politicians, not religious leaders
harbidoll says
So Kafir could also mean Corbon-burnt offering!??
vladkoval says
the matter is that the terms “sacrifice” and “curse” are interrelated.
The thing that you offer for sacrificing – is what you “curse”.
If you spare it – that means you love it, not curse it.
Remember Old Testament, where God bashes the Jews for offering sick animals – it was fake offering – you must offer for sacrificing the thing you love, otherwise it is a fake offering.
Compare with the story of Abraham and Isaak – beloved son to be offered as sacrifice!
American Pragmatism says
The reason why American Pragmatism supports Trump is because he knows Jihad means war against unbelievers and has tha courage to stand up to it and fight for a secure America for our children.
eduardo odraude says
Just bought the book. Thank you for pointing it out. Kilpatrick is outstanding.
Stephanie says
NO Muslim can give me a non-agbrogated Qur’an based refutation on 2:216, 4:76, http://quran.com/8/39, 9:29-33, 111
Stephanie says
Typo: non-agbrogated = non-abrogated (cancelled, ‘Naskh’ http://quran.com/2/106, 16:101)
Angemon says
Added to my “To Read” list.
Johan says
Where is the koran connection that says all Muslims must be or model their behavior after Muhammand? (may a piece of krap fall upon him)
American-Pragmatism says
Quran (9:123) – “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”
Aussie Infidel says
Robert is right. In most circumstances, Jihad means: ‘Warfare Against Unbelievers’.
Jihad is an Arabic word meaning struggle, and while it is used to mean an ‘inner or spiritual struggle to maintain faith’ (the Greater Jihad), it is more often used to mean ‘holy war’ against non-Muslims or unbelievers (the Lesser Jihad). Note: The obvious taqiyya in this explanation is no doubt designed to confuse the Kuffar.
Reference: The Reliance of the Traveller: a manual of sacred Islamic (Sharia) law, O9.0 – 9.14
For the most part, any claims by Muslims or their apologists that Jihad means something other than sanctioned warfare against unbelievers, is simply propaganda – and they need to be confronted with the evidence.
While many Muslims simply wish to live a peaceful life, there is no such thing as ‘peaceful Islam’ – until it subjugates all other religions and cultures, and imposes its iniquitous Sharia law on everyone. Western leaders need to get their heads out of the sand before it is too late.
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer in FrontPage: Yes, ‘Jihad’ Means Warfare Against Unbelievers
……………………..
It should not be necessary to say this over and over again–but it is important to do so.