I was going to pass over this glowing overview of the last two decades of my life and work in silence, but however commendably modest that may have been, it would be unfair to the author of this piece, my good old friend Jeffrey Rubin. I make it a point to thank Jeff in the Acknowledgments section of each of my books; in my latest, The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, I wrote this: “I would be remiss if I did not once again thank the man without whom none of this would ever have happened, Mr. Jeffrey Rubin.” He mentions Jihad Watch below, but leaves one salient detail: he named it.
Hearty thanks to Jeff for this thought-provoking trip down memory lane, which I’ve briefly excerpted below — it’s much longer at the source. Looking back at all this, would I do it all over again? Sure.
“Robert Spencer and the Religion of Terror,” by Jeffrey Rubin, Crisis, October 25, 2018:
“I have been made victorious with terror.” ∼ Muhammad
It couldn’t have been much more than a week after 9/11 when he emailed me an article, “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?,” that he’d written for an obscure Catholic magazine. I was then editor of the Conservative Book Club, and he helped write ads for our books. I was anxious to find, or get published by the Club’s sister company, Regnery Publishing, a book that would refute President Bush’s ridiculous assertions that “Islam is peace.”
The article was scholarly and persuasive. I asked him where he acquired his expertise on Islam; he said it was a focus of his graduate studies in religion at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I asked him to write a book proposal I could submit to Regnery. He did, but Regnery rejected it (I got the impression they bought the Bush line on Islam). So I brought it to another publisher, Encounter Books; they published it as Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions about the World’s Fastest-Growing Religion, and it sold over 40,000 copies. That woke up my colleagues at Regnery, and they signed him to write the second in the Politically Incorrect Guide series I’d conceived for them, this one to be called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). It jumped onto the New York Times bestseller list, quickly topping 100,000 in sales—and Robert Spencer was off to the races.
Today, Spencer is the author of 18 books on Islam—that’s over one per year—including The Truth about Muhammad (another NYT bestseller); The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran; Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is, and Islam Isn’t; and the just-published A History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS. But that just scratches the surface. He’s also director of Jihad Watch, an online chronicle (which also posts YouTube videos) of jihadist activity around the world (including the “stealth jihad” by which Muslims are transforming Western nations through mass immigration), and a platform from which he refutes, with over 40,000 posts to date, the Islamophilic propaganda that pours from not only Muslim sources but Western ones, notably the media. His public appearances—lectures, debates—have numbered about 400 over fifteen years. He is also co-founder of Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA) and the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI).
With all that, it’s no wonder Spencer has been subject to hundreds of death threats, and must hire security guards or be under heavy police protection whenever he speaks publicly. At a no-doubt deliberately provocative “draw the prophet Muhammad” exhibition and contest sponsored by AFDI in Garland, Texas, in May 2015, jihadis opened fire in the parking lot outside the event. “If they had gotten in,” Spencer told me, “I would certainly have been killed.” And at a speaking event in Stuttgart, Germany, “a young Muslim was standing with the organizers of the event. I shook hands all around, and shook his, taking him for one of them. Then he said to me, ‘If it weren’t for all these police around, I would have killed you already.’”
But it’s not only jihadis who are out to get him: the Left—united with Islam in its hatred of everything Western, especially Christianity, yet oblivious to its own inevitable fate whenever and wherever Muslims achieve critical population mass, as they soon will in parts of Europe—has been relentless in attacking and attempting to silence him. Indeed, they almost succeeded in murdering him after a talk he gave in Reykjavik, Iceland, in May 2017. Here’s his account of what happened…
Read the rest here.
mortimer says
Thank God for courageous CRITICAL THINKERS like Jeffrey Rubin who sees and has no fear to say that “ISLAM IS NOT A PEACEFUL RELIGION”.
To the contrary of the mythology and meme that ‘Islam is peace’, a STATISTICAL APPROACH to the RELIGIOUS TEXT of Islam PROVE CATEGORICALLY that Islam is “THE MOST WARLIKE RELIGION”.
Danish researcher Tina Magaard, Ph.D. concluded that Islam is the most warlike religion. After three years analyzing the original texts of ten different religions, Tina Magaard concluded that the Islamic texts stand out by encouraging terror and violence to a larger degree than other religions do. She stated that ‘Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions. The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree.’
jayell says
“Thank God for courageous CRITICAL THINKERS like Jeffrey Rubin who sees and has no fear to say that “ISLAM IS NOT A PEACEFUL RELIGION”…..
But a ‘religion’ is surely supposed to be a purely personal and coherently-informed, intellectually-integrated philosophy that seeks to connect one to an understanding of things beyond one’s mortal limitations and thence (hopefully) to a glimpse of one’s creator, and a thence deeper respect for all creation. As a cheap, shabbily-plagiarised, pseudo-religious sham facade concocted to cloak a thoroughly pernicious proto-nazi toatlitarian ideology invented solely to facititate the overtly evil political ambitions of an ignorant, perverted, criminal Dark-Age megalomaniac, and which consequently is capable of nothing better than dragging its adherents down to the lowest common demoninator of human behaviour, Islam does nothing of the sort. So why don’t we just stop using the word ‘religion’ when talk about this twisted catalogue of thoroughly fraudulant delusion?
mortimer says
Jayell, YOU SHOULD USE THE ARABIC WORD ‘DEEN’ (din), instead of ‘religion'”
You are headed in the right direction. However, it is important to distinguish between ‘DEEN’ (din) and ‘MADHAD’, since both Arabic words are translated into English as ‘RELIGION’. They do not mean what we ordinarily mean in English as ‘religion’.
‘DEEN’ is more accurately translated into English as ‘governance’ than ‘religion’.
DEFINITION of DIN. Din or deen is an Arabic word often mistranslated as “creed” or “religion”. “Din” is a word that features heavily in Islam. Both mainstream and reformist Muslim writers take the word ‘deen’ to mean an all-encompassing WAY OF LIFE carried out under the auspices of Allah’s purpose as expressed in the Qur’an and hadiths. As one ‘progressive’ Muslim writer puts it, far from being an aspect of private life discretely carried out in the mosque, “Islam is Dīn, a complete way of life”.
The term Dīn gained popularity in Arabia and the Greater Middle East after the advent of Islam. The term has Semitic cognates including the Hebrew “dīn” (דין), Aramaic dīnā (דִּינָא), Amharic dañä (ዳኘ) and Ugaritic dyn. It may be the root of the common Semitic word Madīnah (city), and of Midian, a geographical place and a people mentioned in the Bible and in the Qur’an. ME-DIN-A is the place of governance as the capital of the empire of Arabia.
The Hebrew term “דין”, transliterated as “dīn”, means either “law” or “judgment”. In the Kabbalah of Judaism, the term can, alongside “Gevurah” (cognate to the Arabic “Jabaarah”), refer to “power” and “judgment”. In ancient Israel, the term featured heavily in administrative and legal proceedings i.e. Bet Din, literally “the house of judgment,” the ancient building block of the Jewish legal system. Thus, Arabic Dīn does not simply mean “religion” or “faith”, but may in a broad sense refer to “governance”.
It has been said that the word Dīn appears in as many as 79 verses in the Qur’an, but because there is no exact English translation of the term, its precise definition has been the subject of some misunderstanding and disagreement. Consequently, the term is often mistranslated in parts of the Qur’an as “religion”. However, in the Qur’an itself, the act of submission to God is always referred to as Dīn rather than as Madhhab (مذهب), which is the Arabic word for “religion”
In addition to the two broad usages referred to so far, of sovereignty on the one hand and submission on the other, others have noted[10] that the term Dīn is also widely used in translations of the Qur’an in a third sense. Most famously in its opening chapter, al-Fātiḥah, the term is translated in almost all English translations as “judgment”:
K.1.4. transliterated as “Maliki yawmi ad-Dīni,” and (usually) translated as “Master of the Day of Judgment”.
The Arabic word ‘DEEN’ is often translated as “religion,” but this is misleading because the term “religion” in the English language is usually restricted to personal worship, whereas din refers to every aspect of life.
Please read the above and master the Islamic concept of ‘DEEN’.
Jayell says
I used the word ‘religion’ because it appeared in the comment to which I was replying. In any case, the word ‘religion’ is always used when discussing Islam in the English-speaking world. Finally, I am sick to the back teeth of seeing all these arabic buzz-words being fed into what is supposed to be meaningful discussions in English of matters pertaining to islam as it affects things in the English-speaking world, because these ‘technical terms’ are effectively meaningless and relate to a vocabulary and mindset that is incompatible with the thinking and experience of people in this part of the globe. It is further highly objectionable because the implication seems to be that we have to abandon our logic (which includes our identity) in order to accommodate something that is inimical to people here and totally uninvited. That is the sort of thing that usually happens following a military invasion, not ‘peaceful co-existence’.
Carol the 1st says
Jayell…unfortunately if we *don’t* commit to memory the full meaning of their words then we’ll need to repeatedly use our English at very great length – as Mortimer just went to the trouble of doing. Deen needs to become shorthand for the public.
Rod says
Well, we do have the evidence of centuries of armed occupations, colonisations, and ruthless exploitations by Christian nations of (surprise, surprise) predominantly Islamic nations and communities. Then, in more recent times, two World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, and innumerable armed “interventions” by Western Christian nations (one in particular, perhaps the most devoutly, self righteously Christian of them all), in small countries all over the world. The American Civil War, remarkable for its ferocity and the scale of slaughter it accomplished, shouldn’t escape mention either.
The very idea, after the immeasurable and barely comprehensible horrors of the two World Wars, that Islam should be termed the most warlike religion, is so ludicrous that it should properly be dismissed as a lame attempt at humour.
But, in a book dedicated to the life and work of somebody whom almost nobody has ever heard of, I suppose glaringly silly claims like this can go unchallenged, without any real disturbance to the rational discourse of the real world.
ann says
Christ taught only peace and turning the other cheek to aggressors. He taught loving your neighbor as yourself, caring for the poor, forgiveness of wrongs done to the individual. Many Christians have not put these words into practice, but the fact remains that the Gospels teach only peace and love.
Islam teaches the subjugation of the non-Muslim to the sharia, the all-encompassing code of life of the Islamic world. It is ordained that this take place by both verbal persuasion and by violent intimidation, and killing, beheading, and so on are specifically recommended. Every able-bodied young male is commanded to do this, even if he doesn’t want to, and everyone else is commanded to support the jihadi both materially and morally, with a set percentage of the mandated zakat tax being dedicated to this purpose. The goal if to submit the entire world to the sharia, or Islamic law, and violent jihad has always been the principal means of submission.
Muhammad is considered the perfect example and his life Is to be imitated, but that means that someone who murdered, lied, betrayed, beheaded innocent prisoners of war, took a nine-year old wife, beat women, recommended female circumcision, and took sex slaves, is to be imitated. And, of course, millions do.
There is no positive comparison possible to be made between Islam and the other major religions of the world.
gravenimage says
As Rod would have it, the filthy Infidels never should have ended slavery or defeated Fascism.
And the claims that Christian nations are occupying Muslim lands is just false. The reality is exactly the opposite–the whole of the Mahgreb, Anatolia, and most of the Middle East was majority Christian when it was conquered by ravening Muslim invaders.
The idea that concern over Islam having violently conquered half the world is “silly” is just appalling–but just what one would expect for the vicious Rod, given his posting history here.
Of course, he is unable to deny anything that Robert Spencer has said–so he has to resort to the supremely weak claim that no one has ever heard of him.
Rod says
As Rod “would have it”? Yes, let’s imagine what Rod thinks – then gravenimage can prove it wrong.
‘the claims that Christian nations “are occupying” Muslim lands’ What claims? You can read? Not very well, perhaps. You have some knowledge of recent history? Not much, perhaps.
‘The idea that concern over Islam having violently conquered half the world’ Whose idea?
What’s with this weird imagining of non-existent opinions, so that you can ridicule them? Is this the Spencer debating technique? Perhaps that’s why Mr Spencer is so little known as a – well, you tell me. Believe me, friends, your hero is a nobody in the real world outside. Quoted in the world’s media? His ideas influencing the world’s opinions? I don’t think so.
Come on, you can surely do better. Why not refute what I’ve actually said? Too difficult for you?
Unable to deny anything Mr Spencer has said? I thought I had. But why bother? Who cares anyway?
gravenimage says
Notice that Rod is unable to refute a single thing I said. He just repeats what I said and then sneers at it.
He is just hoping to distract us from the fact that Islam *is* a religion of terror. As if those 34,000+ Jihad terror attacks just since 9/11 are peaceful.
Rod says
You can’t challenge my arguments, gi, except by misquoting them. And now I should refute your misquotes? Not impressive, but certainly consistent.
Meanwhile, in Pittsburgh, the self-righteous are again compelled to confront reality, but will probably yet again fail to see the obvious.
Walter Sieruk says
Many times the jihadist members of different Islamic terror entities, as those of ISIS, have gathered together and chanted the words “We love death, they love life.” Likewise those jihadist/Muslims don’t stop with those awful words; they carry through with jihad suicide/homicide attacks. Any sane person would ask “Why do those jihad –minded Muslims have such a mindset of murderous madness?” The answer is that they obtain the way of thinking and believing from the “holy book” of Islam, the Koran. As some people call it the Qu ‘ran. For example the Koran in Sura 9:111 instructs “The believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, they kill and are killed.” Therefore it may be conclude that Islam is actually a death cult. In great and wonderful contrast to the death cult which is Islam there is Christianity which is centered on Jesus and His teachings. For Jesus did not teach killing and death but taught and gave life, a good peaceful well lived life and more. For example Jesus declared “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” John 10:10. [K.J.V.]
mortimer says
‘Hear me, O Quraysh. By Him who holds Muhammad’s life in his hand, I WILL BRING YOU SLAUGHTER.” (Tabari, Vol. VI, page 101)
Abu jahl said to them: “Muhammad alleges that if you follow him you will be kings of the Arabs and the Persians. Then after death you will be raised to gardens like those of the Jordan. But if you do not follow him you will be slaughtered, and when you are raised from the dead you will be burned in the fire of hell.” The apostle (Muhammad) came out to them with a handful of dust saying: “I do say that.” (Ibn Ishaq’s Sira, Page 222)
From a logical viewpoint, does this sound like the PROPHET OF PEACE? No, it sounds like a thug.
Walter Sieruk says
What is called “Radical Islamic Terrorism” , is very much based on religion. The religion of Islam For Islam’s “holy book” the Qur ‘an [the Koran] instructs on the use of violence and killing for the advancement of Islam. As found in ,for example 2:191. 4:89. 5:33. 9:5,111,123. 47:4. Furthermore, it may be illustrated that if Islam is represented as a tree then the fruits then the fruits of that tree are the many brutal, violent and deadly jihad terror entities. Such as ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, al Shabaab , Hamas, Hezbollah, P.I.J. etc. With this statement, the Wisdom of the teachings of Jesus may, very much, apply to this subject. For Jesus taught “Ye do know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” After saying this Jesus told them what He told them when He said “By their fruit ye shall know them.” Matthew 7:16, 17, 18,.20. [K.J.V.] In conclusion, Islam is a corrupt tree and also a false religion, Proverbs 14:12. John 14:6. First John 2:22,23. 4:14,15. 5:12,13,20.
Mario says
Robert, I’ve followed you from almost the beginning. I’m a Catholic and to say I fear for the state of the Church is an understatement. Still, I firmly believe the Catholic Church is the True Church. I can only hope the conversation you’ve had with Mr Likoudis may help you in your heart to return to Her. Robert, thanks for all your hard work. You, sir, are a hero!
Lydia Church says
People always get confused on this. The church started in Jerusalem at Pentecost in 33 A.D. Those present received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the church was ‘born.’ It spread out from there to the surrounding lands, Syria, Greece, Italy, Africa, all over. The characteristics of that ‘one true church’ is found in the New Testament. The believers were called ‘Christians.’ Everything for church structure and Christian practice is laid out in the Bible. That is the authority for the Christian faith. Then, in 314 AD in entered Constantine. He craved power and in order to gain it over the Roman Empire, he ‘unified’ the church. He also brought in many pagan practices from surrounding pagan religions in Rome, to ‘popularize’ Christianity. He persecuted anyone who did not go along with him. The outside face of the church changed with Constantine, who was really the first ‘pope.’
But even in the Orthodox church, as has happened later in the Protestant church, and now again, there is a cycle. Things are good at first and then they get rigid, calcified, ritualistic, and stuffy. It’s all about ‘going through the motions.’ A few drops of water, without willing consent, and puff! Ta-da! Now a baby is a ‘Christian’! But it does not work that way… as it says in the Bible in Acts 8; 37 you must BELIEVE with all your heart before baptism has any meaning in your life! Otherwise it is of no avail. Besides it is only symbolic just like communion. Salvation is an event that you must be totally ‘present’ for in the sense of being willing and aware of it happening. You get on your knees and turn to Jesus, with no middle man, because He is the only middle man. (1 Timothy 2; 5). Then came the Evangelical church and many revivals (the Reformation process never ends) with fresh fillings of the Holy Spirit and Spirit lead churches. But now we are in the days of apostasy and those have gone off the tracks as well. We are in the last days. But the ‘one true church’ is made up of born again believers, who are filled with the Holy Spirit and thus are part of Christ’s body, of which He is the Head.
How can a church be ‘the one true church’ if it has a leader that is the antichrist? Would God allow that in His ‘only’ church? Never!
Mario says
Please spare me such silly protestant “theology”. There are so many holes in your short text, beginning with the “The Bible is the authority for the Christian faith” which…ta da!…is NOT in the Bible. Or Constantine as the first Pope; not to mention that you’ve finished calling Pope Francis the anti-Christ – I doubt Robert Spencer would vouch for such comment, despite the latter’s repeated correct statements about the wrong remarks/perspective of P. Francis with respect to Islam or immigration..
Anyway, my comment was directed to Robert as I imagine all of this hasn’t been easy.
Lydia, not that I’m not happy to discuss things with you, but here’s perhaps not the best place?
Michael says
@Mario “The Bible is the authority for the Christian faith” which…ta da!…is NOT in the Bible.”
Ta da! That’s where you are wrong Mario..
Jesus said “sanctify them with thy truth, thy word is truth.” Let’s not forget that Peter by the Holy Ghost also said “to desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may GROW thereby.” (empasis mine)
Let’s also not forget that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
2 Timothy 3:16 KJV
What about the psalms?”I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried: I hoped in thy word.”
Psalms 119:147 KJV
Time and time again we see the exortation to read God’s word, I can only conclude sir that you’ve never read it and that you have some other final authority. Mario is a man with religion but God is not at all in it: he can’t see the forest for the trees.
Wellington says
Lydia: The present Pope is not the antichrist. He’s just a fool. Go from there.
Look, there have been bad popes (though most have been good, more or less) just as there have been bad Protestant ministers and bad Orthodox patriarchs (though most from these latter two groups have also been good, more or less).
There’s no upside to dividing Christians. Please, if you will, proceed from this highly defensible assumption. And remember, Robert Spencer is an Eastern Rite Catholic. Care to castigate him too?
Keep the eye on the ball, Lydia. We need virtually all Christians, as well as Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Taoists, agnostics, atheists, et al. on the same side respecting to thwart what Islam intends for all of us.
Division among those who oppose Islam serves no good purpose. Surely you can see this, can’t you?
gravenimage says
Entirely agree, Wellington.
mortimer says
Hear, hear, Wellington.
Sowing division is counterproductive to the counterjihad. Concentrate on the things in which all agree: we agree about Jihadism, namely, the doctrine which claims warfare against the infidels (kafirs) is the most important action in Islam and a duty for all Muslims.
Jihadism is normative Islam and a threat to 80% of humanity. We need unity among the 80% if we are to defeat JIHADISM … a scourge to all people.
Please, stop making comments on JIHADWATCH that are distractions from our mission of debunking jihad in the eyes of a deluded world. There is much work to do. Please …Take care with your words.
gravenimage says
Good post, Mortimer.
Carol the 1st says
Very interesting, Lydia. I find Protestantism and Catholicism actually complement each other.. The formality of Catholicism has a certain staid grandeur but the challenge to it’s claimed “corralling of the Christ market” by Protestantism feels vitally alive and quite appropriate.
Lydia Church says
This is no time to be bashful!
Even though it may be cute…
( ;
Speak up and cry out!
The enemy is at the gate!
islam is the most unpeaceful religion there is!
Very interesting read!
gravenimage says
“Robert Spencer and the Religion of Terror”
………………..
Great stuff from Robert Spencer and Jeffrey Rubin. Thank you.
Bev says
Thank you Robert.
Google: KZN bomb attack – 11 accused linked to ISIS.
The above occurred this week in Durban, Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa. SA is not exempt from the madness of the teachings in the Qur’an.
gravenimage says
Thanks for the terrible reference, Bev.
dan christenen says
Keep up the good work, mr. Spencer.
You are admired by many of your readers for your power of expression – clear and to the point.
Robin Rosenblatt says
How long has the world been free of Islam? About and only 1000 years. what is happening in Europe? An Islamic invasion. Who has won? Islam. Wake up. The free world has tried to destroy Islam several times and has fail. If we don’t do it the world will end and us along with it.
Garfield says
Thank G*d for Robert Spencer and the other brave warriors in this fight for freedom and truth. Peaceful heroes! Thank you for all you do.