The renowned historian and linguist Koenraad Elst here offers a magnificent review of The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, which you can order here.
“History of Jihad, a thriller,” by Koenraad Elst, Pragyata, August 6, 2019:
Policy-makers faced with a major challenge, one that their successors may still have to deal with if they themselves don’t solve it, will first of all need to know the nature of that challenge. An urgent challenge for the contemporary world leaders is Jihād, literally “effort (in the way of Allah)”, effectively “Islamic war against the Infidels”. For their use, and for everyone’s, Robert Spencer has written a remarkably complete account of the origins of the Jihad doctrine and the highlights of its applications in history. It is aptly titled History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS (Post Hill Press, Nashville/New York, 2018) and dedicated to “the untold millions of victims of jihad”.
This well-written and fully referenced book is a mighty thriller, with even more suspense than most. After some turns in the plot, from Islamic expansion to Islamic decline and back to Islamic expansion, and from Unbeliever defeats to Unbeliever resistance and ascendancy on to Unbeliever self-undoing, it stops before the ending. We have yet to see if jihad will ultimately prevail. Even if it won’t, it seems likely to cause us lots more trouble before it goes.
There is much, much more. Read the rest here.
Angemon says
RonaldB says
I have read through “The History of Jihad” twice. To be frank, it’s not too easy to keep track of Arabic and other foreign names. But, it was well worth the read.
The most salient point for me was the ease and rapidity with which the Muslim armies swept through the Middle East, Christian countries, Christian Eastern European countries, Christian north African countries, and most of Spain. There was almost no resistance, and what resistance there was, was swept aside. The Muslim armies were stopped at Tours, as the review mentioned, but it was a close call. Also, the Reconquista of Spain actually came from a dark horse region of northern Spain that was fiercely Christian, and so fiercely protective of their mountain redoubt that the Muslims simply bypassed them.
And this doesn’t even cover the unremitting and ongoing conquest of Indian states by Muslims who weren’t entirely stopped until the British colonial incursion.
This raises many questions for me on what it takes for a country to defend itself. I generally favor small representative republics with very small standing armies, which is not what the US Constitution provides. But, a strong counterargument to my preference is the question of whether a large, more inefficient, more bureaucratic state is necessary to defend against external threats. It is an open question not completely answered even today.
But, we’re going in the opposite direction. We now have a massive military, built up largely through deficit spending, that involves itself in almost every country and every conflict in the world. Part of the philosophy of this massive external military involvement is maintaining good relations with foreign peoples by not securing our borders very effectively. It might be said for every foreign conflict we engage in, we become obligated to accept hundreds of thousands of refugees from the losing side, who fought as allies to our forces, or at least claimed they did.
I personally think the best way to resist jihad is small, autonomous republics and states. Like Hungary, Poland, Italy, and other states who are not major players but whose governments are connected enough to the people to garner strong support in effective border and immigration control. The flip side of the coin is Sweden, and probably England and Scotland, who decided unilaterally to self-destruct. But, at least they would not be able to pull other countries with them in a compartmentalized Europe of smaller, independent countries.
I’ll end as I began. “The History of Jihad” like all good histories and analyses, gives material for logical conclusions that even the authors might not have thought of. This is what happens when authors like Robert Spencer deal in real facts.
CRUSADER says
Excellent review, RonaldB, thank you / gratitude.
Of course, VISEGRAD is showing the way….
“fiercely Christian, and so fiercely protective of their mountain redoubt …”
I personally think this is the way to go about it.
Come to the American Redoubt!
As for:
“This raises many questions for me on what it takes for a country to defend itself. I generally favor small representative republics with very small standing armies…”
Federal government wasn’t to be so large — as many Constitutional framers pictured it. States were to have their semi-autonomy. And we were to have militias to be called up from armed citizenry, who would defend the First Amendment (supported closely at hand by the Second)….
MOLON LABE :
(μολὼν λαβέ, molṑn labé)
— ‘having come, take’ !!!
Rod says
Wasn’t it kind of the British to stop the Muslim invasion of India? That’s not really what happened, but let’s remember that the British proceeded to take over and occupy the entire country, as well as neighbouring states, using military force with huge loss of life where necessary, subjugate its peoples, cultures, and government, exploit its resources and the labour of its inhabitants until, when finally forced to depart, leaving it in penury, they left it to face a horrendous catastrophe, largely of their making.
So let’s demonise the Muslims.
gravenimage says
“Rod” really, really wants you to ignore the Muslim slaughter of 80 million Hindus–and the fact that Muslims are still murdering Indians to this day.
Thomas Hennigan says
No member State of the UE is an independent State, It has sold out to the UE version of global control by well paid bureaucrats. Hopefully, it can be brought down and that Brexit will finally take place. Then the above mentioned countries might be able to bring it down from the inside. Ireland is a small country, but at present it is totally beholden to UE eurocrats and apparently willing to be controlled by them and a little region of the European Soviet style Politburo.
Judith Harding says
Dear RonaldB — Your analysis about smaller, strong nation states that resist the encroaching influence of Islamic ideology seems very sound. I read your comments with much interest and admiration. Thank you.
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer’s History of Jihad is “a mighty thriller, with even more suspense than most”
…………………………
This is true–as much as I already knew about the history of Jihad, I learned a great deal. As grim as this material is, Spencer is an immensely engaging and entertaining writer. Everyone here should read this book.
CRUSADER says
Has deepak read History of Jihad” yet?
Some of the best content, in my opinion, was on India!
That could’ve taken up an entire book, and could be in the cards after the “palestine” treatise, perhaps? Robert isn’t currently allowed in the UK, but perhaps he would someday showcase his knowledge in India itself for Indian readers as they are most definitely needing knowledge and support in this vein. Jihad is a burgeoning threat to Indians once again!
(I read it only once, but took copious notations on it.)
This is a true statement: “a mighty thriller, with even more suspense”.
I found the book to be a real page-turner, and often couldn’t put it down once opened up!
I would describe the book as fascinating, and I bought many copies to hand out to folks; I had read it in concert with Ray Ibrahim’s “Sword & Scimitar” — which made both books sing out! I would recommend anyone to do the same. ?
Looking forward to Spencer’s “palestinian DELUSION” !
Got my ca$h and my marking pen
handy for its arrival!!! ?
SAFI says
+1
Indeed RI’s Sword and Scimitar is also very well written. As is Andrew G Bostom’s “Legacy of Jihad”. All these books are great recommendations especially for folks affected by Islamophilia Disorder Syndrome who autistically insist that Islam is a Religion of Peace and anyone who says otherwise is an ignorant(!) “islamophobe”.
And yet, I must say, despite their writers’ best efforts to take on such a monumental task, the most all these books can hope to achieve is merely scratch the surface of Islam’s relentless 1400 long campaing for subjugating the world. Bostom is actually a physician by profession but decided to do the “dirty” work which all those worthless academic historians refused and still refuse to do (partly out of fear of what could happen to their careers if they dared to question the dominant islamophilic narrative.) Especially the ones nestled in the many departments of “islamic studies” that pollute western universities and keep receiving large grants from islamic regimes and other islamist groups, for the purpose of advancing this subversive “kulturjihad” against the West on the historiographical arena, through whitewashing and glorifying the gruesome history of Islam while demonizing those who historically fought against islamic agression(evil crusaders). Our enemy understands fully well the importance of controlling the historical narrative, time for our side to do the same. These books are a good start but we must substantially increase our efforts on that key front.
RonaldB says
Disagree. There is plenty of information out there. The leftists Marxists are not going to change their minds because they are absolutely impervious to reasoning. The best outcome is to remove the stranglehold on education. End federal support for education. End degree requirements for jobs; take the test, show competence and productive experience, and you should be competitive. Remove federal student loan guarantees and for sure subject student loan to normal bankruptcy. The purpose is to require colleges to attract students on their own merit and not simply because it is deceptively easy for young people to sign a paper and party away 4 years under a cultural Marxist professorship.
shoehorn says
It’s even got Dracula, and Miguel de Cervantes the author of Don Quixote who fought at Lepanto.
sidney penny says
“The renowned historian and linguist Koenraad Elst here offers a magnificent review of The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, which you can order here.”
Koenraad Elst once said:
“I strongly deny having ever been “anti-Muslim”, for I make it a point to frequently insist that “not Muslims but Islam is the problem””
He got into trouble for that.
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/saffronwave.html
sidney penny says
Watch the 7 Minutes video and read the transcript.
“The negationists of India are not just tolerated, they are effectively celebrated. For they are rewarded by the establishment and often placed in the top echelons of power. Once placed, they go about the task of rewriting history and conjuring up centuries of Hindu-Muslim unity… out of thin air!”
“The American historian Will Durant summed it up as follows:
The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It’s a discouraging tale for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.”
“Read more, think critically, gather the courage to face the truth. Even the
Upanishads say Satyameva Jayate, the truth shall prevail.
I am Koenraad Elst for Upword.”
https://deeshaa.org/2019/06/20/koenraad-elst-negatisionism-in-india-hiding-the-real-history-of-islam/
mortimer says
Koeraad Elst writes: “We have yet to see if jihad will ultimately prevail. Even if it won’t, it seems likely to cause us lots more trouble before it goes.”
I think we can defeat jihad by showing Muslims that the Koran and hadiths are human products and not divine in origin. The author of the Koran knew only what a semi-literate or illiterate Bedouin of the 7th century would know. The author of the Koran makes myriad stupid mistakes that show it is the forgery of a very stupid human.
FYI says
And here is a few of them..
“WE bestowed on [Jesus} the Gospel”k5:46
When did Jesus ever have the Gospel?
It came AFTER the time of Jesus.
Jesus was not involved with the writing down of the gospel:that responsiblility was given to the Apostles and Disciples,not Jesus Himself.
“Lo!I am the slave of allah.he hath given me the scripture and appointed me a prophet”
k19:30
The Dawa people use this to fool people into thinking this is Jesus admitting to be allah’s prophet.From the context v 23 and v29 “How can we talk to one who is in the cradle” said by visitors,indicating a language barrier..which of course there would have been as it is an INFANT.That statement allegedly coming from Jesus…It is a TALKING BABY and note how,ludicrously,he says he has the scripture..the Gospel…whilst IN A CRIB.
k17.1 muhammed flying to Jerusalem from mecca on his flying horse to visit a mosque.
What mosque was that exactly?
Where is there any evidence of a FLYING HORSE WITH A WOMAN’S FACE?
“Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian” k3;67.
Given Abraham is in the Genealogy of Jesus{Matthew 1} who confirms Himself to be Jewish{John 4 v 22 “We Jews know whom we worship for it is from the Jews that salvation comes”}it is self-evident Abraham was Jewish.He was categorically NOT a muslim.
The koran tries to replace the Jews by pretending the ARABS are the chosen people instead.
“And the Jews say ‘Ezra is the son of allah” k9:30
A nonsensical statement:What Ezra?What Jews say that?
The concept of Ezra being the son of allah doesn’t exist in Judaism
{Don’t you think if LAH was the SAME as the Biblical God he would know the role of the Jews and the nonsense about “Ezra is the son of allah?}
Allah confirms the Bible as being true at the time the koran was written down k3:3.
In the Gospel which allah claims to be the author of,the theology of the Trinity is revealed including an explanation of the Holy Spirit:yet in the koran allah insists muslims don’t believe in God’s Wisdom k4:171 denying the Holy Spirit {Cease say not “three”! It is better for you}It is better muslims don’t know about God’s spirit of Wisdom..
Is intercession allowed in islam?
What does the koran say?
yes ,says allah k4;85
No,says muhammed k74;48
So muhammed contradicts allah,one part of the koran cancels out another.
By allah’s own criterion k4:82,if incongruities exist in the koran,allah cannot be the real God..and lo and behold we see allah reveals many incongruities in his “perfect” book
RonaldB says
Very funny incongruities you bring out. Keep in mind that Muslims are by and large impervious to logic in arguing Islam. I realize Muslims react violently to any criticism of Islam, but I don’t believe it’s because they’re afraid of Muslims leaving. I don’t think that’s a big risk for them. Instead, Islam is a religion of power, and it’s important to maintain Islam’s image as top boy on the block that they violently dissuade any criticism. Islam won’t lose power to logical arguments, but it will lose power if it can be shown that Muslims don’t control the dialog at all times.
FYI says
The scientific errors are even more preposterous..
It is worth while looking at them on You Tube:-
The Scientific mistakes of the quran
muslims will deny this{usually by -desperately-fiddling the Arabic}
It is obviously the mind of a 7th century man trying to pass himself off as God.
There is also the following..
The Denial of the 2nd chief commandment{Lev 19:18} in k5:51 where allah tells muslims NOT to get along with Jews and christians.
What the koran teaches is contrary to BOTH of God’s Chief commandments{LOVE OF GOD through obeying his Exodus 20 laws etc and LOVE OF OTHERS}.
Why bother to obey God’s commandments when allah says muslims can break them?{The koran permits murder,adultery with enslaved women,steling,bearing false witness;as long as the recipients of such muslim behavior are infidels.
Why bother with the Golden Rule,the “Love Thy Neighbor” command in islam when allah says you can kill them,enslave them,force them to convert or pay a Jizya tax?
The mistaken islamic belief that Christians are polytheists{The Trinity is actually a MONOTHEISTIC concept and has nothing to do with God being ‘divided into parts’ or having companions.3 aspects of the One God is NOT 3 completely separate gods as muslims think.
Oh-and alalh seems to think Mary is part of the Trinity;thus we see a god who gets THEOLOGY wrong.
The Denial of Christ’s crucifixion k4:157:allah says it was someone else.
But wait:allah says he gave the Gospel to Jesus!
Allah says “Above it are nineteen” in k74:30.Nineteen what?
Nobody knows.It is an inconclusive statement.
Yet allah says of the koran “Lo! This koran is a conclusive word”k86:13
The koran cannot be a conclusive word if it has inconclusive statements.
The Arabic nonsense: a god who only speaks one language cannot be a universal god.allah does not seem to think arabs capable of knowing another language”What?A FOREIGN TONGUE and an Arab?”k41:
allah does not permit final penitence k4:18
allah is NOT a merciful god
RonaldB says
For FYI:
Well, theology is a complex subject. You have to cut Allah some slack when he makes a mistake concerning moderately complex theological concepts or he got up on the wrong side of the cosmic bed and produces gibberish.
Judith Harding says
What a stunning review of your book, dear Robert Spencer. I must tell you, I am speechless at the amount of historical data and detail you have amassed in this one book, “History of Jihad.” Yours is an unparalleled service to humanity, and to God Himself. And this reviewer’s analysis of your great work is a college education in itself. I cannot imagine how you have endured, year in and year out, your consistent, brave, insistent battle, to expose to any who would listen, the awful truths of “the religion of peace.” Only the blind would give a peaceful appellation to religio-political ideology that has caused indescribable, limitless suffering, pain, oppression, mutilation, displacements, subjugations, and death to the whole world — a plague whose descriptions of its whipping miseries could enflame and fill all the libraries of our globe. There is no equal, I do surmise, to the sacrifice you have made, Robert Spencer, in your truth-telling gifts to the world — especially in your “History of Jihad.” Billions of thanks.
shoehorn says
“Mohammed was no sadist, he just wanted his critics and enemies surrendered or dead, he didn’t bother to make them suffer.”
On the contrary: ” Muhammad pronounced their judgment: their eyes were branded with hot irons, then plucked out, their hands and feet were cut off, and then, while still alive, they were thrown out on the hot desert to die.”
https://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/shepherds.htm
tim gallagher says
I thought the book, The History of Jihad” was excellent and certainly showed evidence of a huge amount of research by Robert Spencer, along with a great narrative ability . The main conclusion (or maybe lesson is the right word) I came away with after reading it was that, at least in the case of Europe, the people there managed to throw Islam and all its barbarities out, but, then, in recent times they have foolishly allowed Muslims back into many European countries. I guess the lessons of history (which Robert’s book make clear) have been forgotten and also, I suppose, once you first start letting Muslims into your countries, for a while, when the numbers of Muslims are small, they don’t create much trouble. Later on, they inevitably do. Also the notions of political correctness and multiculturalism, where this crap that all cultures are OK, have contributed to this blunder of letting Islam back in. It’s been a big mistake to let Islam back in. In my opinion it will have to be thrown out again once enough people wake up and see how much damage it is causing.