Robert Spencer: The History of Jihad from Muhammad to ISIS

The Rebel, by Jon Cardillo, May 1, 2018:

On last night’s episode of Off The Cuff Declassified, Author and Director of JihadWatch.org Robert Spencer joined me to discuss his newest book The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS.

Using eyewitness accounts from people on the scene, Robert addresses the claim that Christians, Jews, and Muslims once coexisted in peace.

Topics explored in this book include the Ottoman invasion of Europe, the fracturing of Christianity during the Protestant Reformation, and the temporary alliance of the British and Ottomans.

WATCH my interview with Robert to hear more about the popular myths surrounding Islam that he seeks to debunk.

Sword and Scimitar: A Look into Raymond Ibrahim’s New Book

Front Page Magazine, by Jamie Glazov, May 28, 2018:

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Raymond Ibrahim, an author, public speaker, and Middle East and Islam specialist. He is currently a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow, Middle East Forum. His new book is Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West.

Frontpage: Raymond, welcome to Frontpage interview.

Ibrahim: Good to be back Jamie, thank you.

FP: Congrats on your new book coming out. Introduce us to it.

Raymond Ibrahim: Thanks, Jamie.  The book’s title is Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West.  As indicated by the title, it is a military history between Islam and the West, narrated around their eight most decisive clashes, the first and last of which occurred more than a millennium apart.  But while the eight battles/sieges form the centerpieces of the book’s eight chapters, the bulk of the narrative chronologically traces and tells the general (but much forgotten) story of Islam and the West, most of which of course revolved around warfare—with all the attendant death, destruction, slavery, and geopolitical demarcations and map rearrangements.

FP: Quite a fascinating and original approach.  How and when did you get this idea?

Ibrahim:  Well, we can say I began working on portions of this book some twenty years ago—since around 1998-99, when I first started doing academic research for what became my MA thesis (in History): a close examination, including through the original Arabic and Greek sources, of the battle of Yarmuk—the first major military encounter between Islam and the Eastern Roman Empire in 636 (highlighted in Chapter 1 of the book).

Since then, I’ve continued to study the historic clash between the West and Islam, writing sporadic but relevant articles—for example on the Second Siege of Constantinople and the Battle of Tours—and of course working on and fine tuning Sword and Scimitar.

FP: While the book is obviously historical, it also clearly has crucial contemporary relevance and significance. Can you talk a bit about that?

Ibrahim: Sure Jamie, thank you. Although the book and its narrative revolve around historic warfare, it offers, as you observe, many lessons of contemporary relevance.  Take for example the question of whether the behavior of Islamic groups such as the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) is Islamic or not.  Those many “experts” who insist ISIS is just a gang of “terrorists” who have “nothing to do with Islam” will be hard pressed to explain why over a millennium of leading Muslims—caliphs, sultans, emirs, ulema and jurists of the highest order—have said to and done in Europe the same exact things ISIS says and does to “infidels” today.

The book also documents a little known fact: that what we today call “the West” is really the westernmost remnant of what was a much more extensive civilizational block that Islam permanently severed. Over the centuries, nonstop jihad and terror saw three-fourths of the post-Roman Christian world become Islamic, leaving the remaining quarter—Europe proper—in a permanent state of embattlement.  It is, incidentally, for this reason that tiny Europe’s self-identity did not historically revolve around ethnicity or language—hence why such a small corner of the Eurasian landmass (Europe) still houses dozens of both, some widely divergent, while much larger landmasses are homogenous—but rather religion: it was the last and most redoubtable bastion of Christendom not to be conquered by Islam.

The book should further bring Westerners up to speed with Muslims, at least when it comes to the latter’s frequent (and to Western ears, cryptic) referencing of history.   For example, when Yasser Arafat made a peace treaty with Israel in 1994 that was criticized by fellow Arabs and Muslims as offering too many concessions, the Palestinian leader justified his actions by saying, “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca”—that is, a truce that Muhammad abolished on a pretext once he was in a position of power and able to go on the offensive.

Similarly, many of the otherwise bizarre and obscene things ISIS says to the West—“American blood is best, and we will taste it soon,” or “We love death as you love life,” or “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women”—are verbatim quotes spoken by the historic jihad’s greatest practitioners  Whereas many of the world’s Muslims make the connection and appreciate the deeper meaning behind the words and deeds of their politically active coreligionists, the West remains oblivious of the deliberate continuity.

In short, unlike most military histories—which no matter how fascinating are ultimately academic—Sword and Scimitar offers several contemporary lessons.  It further sets the much distorted historical record between the two civilizations straight and, in so doing, demonstrates once and for all that Muslim hostility for and terrorization of the West is not an aberration but a continuation of Islamic history.

FP: Tell us about your research method in writing this book and your extremely impressive utilization of primary sources.

Ibrahim: As mentioned, because I’ve been working on this book—even if sometimes only in my head—for about two decades, I managed to create a thoroughly comprehensive bibliography, as well as make copies of several older manuscripts during my years working at the African and Middle Eastern Division of the Library of Congress.  I also utilized sources in and translated from other languages—particularly Arabic, including by providing to my knowledge never before translated excerpts of the historic clash.

And yes, firmly believing that history’s Muslims and Christians had a much better idea of why they were fighting and dying, I certainly did focus on primary sources (probably well over half of the book’s one-thousand endnotes cite primary source quotes).  Their words—separated by centuries and continents—evince a remarkable continuity that is alone significant.

That said, and because the oft-made boast of relying “only on primary sources” is all too often an excuse for not grappling with all the existing literature—that is, for not doing one’s homework (primary sources, especially if limited to translations, are usually only an iota of what is available)—I tried to supplement and balance the narrative with the interpretations and observations of authoritative historians, that is, secondary sources.

FP: When will Sword and Scimitar formally be published and are there any other interesting tidbits you can tell us?

IbrahimAugust 28 is the book’s official release date [pre-order here from your preferred distributor].  Because it deals with topics that fascinated me decades before I began writing about contemporary Islam, I can honestly say that I “went all out” with this book: as mentioned, it contains over one-thousand endnotes from some 220 books and monographs; 37 relevant photos (from epic paintings to modern atrocities) and a comprehensive, general map, tracing the historic struggle between Islam and the West.

My publisher, Da Capo, is moreover not only a leader in military history, but a member of the Hachette Book Group—the third largest publisher in the world—thereby positioning the book to receive suitable coverage and dissemination.

It’s also an honor that America’s premiere military historian, Victor Davis Hanson, has provided the book with an excellent foreword; similarly, a number of historians and professors in fields germane to the book—published scholars on the crusades, the Reconquista, Medieval Islam and jihad—have endorsed it.

Ultimately it’s my hope that Sword and Scimitar ends up being what I spent years working on it to be—something of a magnum opus, one that, while vividly bringing the past to life, goes a long way to make sense of the present.

FP: Thanks so much for joining Frontpage Interview, Raymond. And congratulations on this new exciting and educational read.  We wish you all the best with it.

Ibrahim: Thank you, Jamie.

***

Here is an excerpt from the book:

Islamic Anti-Semitism is Really Islamic Imperialism

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, June 6, 2018:

We ask that the verses of the Qur’an calling for the killing and punishment of Jews, Christians and unbelievers be rendered obsolete,” the manifesto states.

It cites the murders of Sarah Halimi and  Mireille Knoll, two elderly Jewish women murdered by anti-Semitic Muslim thugs, the fact that “French Jews are 25 times more likely to be attacked than their fellow Muslims”, and the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Jews from the encroaching no-go zones.

“10% of the Jewish citizens of Île-de-France – that is to say about 50,000 people – were recently forced to move because they were no longer safe in some cities and because their children could not attend the schools of the Republic,” it courageously warns.

“This is a quiet ethnic cleansing being carried out in in the country of Emile Zola and Clemenceau.”

The manifesto was written by former Charlie Hebdo editor Philippe Val, who had republished the original Mohammed cartoons from the Jyllands-Posten despite the threats, both terroristic and legal, and its signatories include former president, Nicolas Sarkozy, the former mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoë, famed singer Charles Aznavour, actor Gérard Depardieu, and many other significant figures.

The moral power and the importance of the manifesto should not be underestimated.

After 9/11, it was American Jews who brought attention to the plight of French Jews while their community leaders often preferred to remain silent. Now it is French Jews who speak out, who march and whose LDJ even confronts Islamic thugs in the street while American Jews keep quiet or collaborate.

The despicable alliance between AJC and ISNA, and the ADL’s attack on Canary Mission, carry with them the stench of Vichy on the spring wind. When an Islamic terrorist attacked a Kosher supermarket before the Sabbath, asking his victims if they were Jewish before he shot them, Obama dismissed it as a random attack on a “bunch of folks in a deli.” It’s become virtually impossible in the United States to have a discussion about Islamic anti-Semitism without being denounced as an Islamophobe.

Why did France and America trade places? France has faced worse terrorist attacks in recent years than we have. But, more significantly, it lacks the politically correct viewpoint consolidation of America. Despite certain views being criminalized, there are all sorts of non-traditional views in public life there that are actively debated, instead of being airbushed or silenced the way they are in the United States.

Neither the manifesto nor Charlie Hebdo could exist in the United States. The media in this country censored the Mohammed cartoons more vigorously than the Europeans did. Without any legal threat.

And yet, despite its moral courage and its vital message, the manifesto misses the true nature of Islamic anti-Semitism.

It’s a lot more than a few verses.

The verses are part of a larger Islamic narrative. They’re not random outbursts, but a story. And that story is the primal conflict between Mohammed and the Jews. It begins with the massacre of the Jews at Khaybar and concludes with an end of days that can only come when Muslims exterminate the Jews.

It’s not a few intemperate verses. Anti-Semitism is fundamental to the story of Islam. And that story with its visions of a conquest sweeping across the world has not ended. That’s why the violence goes on.

Jews and Christians have a paradoxical role in Islam. They are on the one hand, People of the Book, the unacknowledged originators of the ideas and texts that Mohammed looted to found Islam. But their precedence is removed by accusing them of having betrayed Allah and perverted the scriptures.

Unlike the polytheistic pagans wiped out by Islam, Jews and Christians are in theory monotheists, with a higher status, but they’re also accused of being mushrikeen, polytheists, who take “partners” with Allah. Jews and Christians had “taken Rabbis and monks to be their lords besides Allah”. (Koran 9:31)

The ambiguity of Jews and Christians gave them a special status and a special peril. Ritual humiliations of Jews and Christians were enacted to demonstrate their inferiority and the supremacy of the Muslim. In an honor-shame culture, Islamic superiority had to be demonstrated by humiliating other religions.

When Jews and Christians gained independence or won battles, it called the truth of Islam into question.

That, rather than a few verses, is what we are dealing with. The verses remain relevant to those Muslims who believe that they are in a zero-sum struggle with every other religion on a battlefield whose scope is as large as the planet and as small as a neighborhood or a building. And that’s the vast majority.

You can try to make an idea obsolete when it’s no longer relevant. But the anti-Semitic hatred in almost every country where Jews and Muslims both live shows that anti-Semitism remains quite relevant.

Hating Jews, attacking them and even killing them, remains a meaningful part of Islamic identity.

The Jews were a primal Islamic enemy. That enmity is written into Islamic scriptures, traditions and prayers. All of that can’t be made obsolete because the Islamic conquest is an ongoing project.

It’s not a few verses. It’s the context of the conquest. That’s the mission at the heart of Islam.

The Lebensraum and Drang Nach Osten of Islam might pause for periods, but it never actually stops. Iraqis, Pakistanis and Somali migrants pour into Europe seeking Lebensraum. They move into poorer areas associated with immigrants bringing them into contact with earlier Jewish communities.

When the second generation, usually more prone to supremacist violence and expansionism than its immigrant forebears, comes of age, the Jewish communities are violently driven out of their homes.

The verses that justify it won’t become obsolete until the modes of behavior behind them lapse.

Calls for the persecution of Jews and Christians won’t be outmoded relics of another time until Muslims make them so, not by changing words, but by changing deeds. The trouble is that the verses remain entirely relevant because Muslim populations around the world continue to fight religious wars.

Muslim hatred of Jews has unique elements. As anti-Semitism usually does. But it’s still a subset of an Islamic supremacism and xenophobia that is endemic and whose consequences can be seen in clashes between Muslims and Christians in Nigeria, Muslims and Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims and Buddhists (and Hindus) in Myanmar, Muslims and Yazidis in Iraq, Muslims and Zoroastrians in Iran, Muslims and Atheists in Bangladesh, and those are just a few of the many examples around the world.

Islam is not on good terms with any other religion. Including its own spinoffs, like the Bahai, or its own subdivisions, like the Sunnis and the Shiites.

It’s not about the Jews. It’s about Islam.

The truth of Islam is validated by violence. Its theological disputes are settled by force.

The verses about Jews and Christians are not the problem. They’re a symptom of the problem. As are the terrorist attacks, stabbings, shootings, bombings, no-go zones, sharia police and sex grooming gangs.

The response from Muslim clerics in France to the manifesto has been to claim that the verses are meant to be seen in the context of their time and that Islamic wars are only defensive. Historically, that’s nonsense. But everyone would be perfectly happy if they believed that and really lived it.

Instead Islamic violence is always deemed to be defensive. Peace can only come from victory, not co-existence. War with non-Muslims who don’t submit to Sharia law is seen as inevitable and necessary.

The verses libeling Christians and Jews, and justifying violence against them, are just rationalizing this fundamental Islamic worldview and applying it to specific targets. Islamic anti-Semitism is born of Islamic supremacism and imperialism. Muslims aren’t persecuting Jews just because of anti-Semitic verses in the Koran. They’re persecuting Jews because the Koran is supremacist and imperialistic.

That’s why Muslim violence against Jews is not just a problem for Jews. It’s a problem for everyone.

Like the Yazidis, Jews are a tiny minority and more vulnerable. That’s what makes them the canaries in the coal mine of Islamic migration. Muslim attacks on Jews in Europe date back over a generation. Long before Paris, Brussels and London were being regularly terrorized; European Jews had already retreated into fortified synagogues, stopped wearing Jewish clothing in public and maximized their security.

That was the canary in the coal mine. If Europe had woken up then, it wouldn’t be choking now.

American synagogues and Jewish institutions are starting to resemble their European counterparts. A decade ago, armed guards were a rarity outside synagogues. I walk past them all the time now.

The French manifesto is an imperfect effort to call attention to a burning problem. It’s an attempt to start an urgent and necessary conversation in France that can’t even be had in the United States.

And it’s a conversation that we must have before civilization chokes in the coal mine.

Speaking Truth Boldly is the Best Response to the Islamic Threat

Understanding the Threat, by John  Guandolo, May 29, 2018:

Propaganda is, by definition, intentionally used to manipulate and control, making it antithetical to liberty.

The Islamic Movement uses its “Islamophobia” campaign as a hammer to impose the Islamic Law of Slander on the non-muslim world.  Slander is legally defined in Islam as saying anything about Islam that muslims would “dislike,” and is a capital crime under sharia.

The best way to counter the tidal wave of lies, deceit, and propaganda coming from Islamic leaders is to speak truth boldly without hesitation, no matter what the cost.

In the shadow of 2018’s Memorial Day when America honors it’s war dead, what better way to pay tribute to those who gave it all in the defense of freedom than to sacrifice some comfort to dare to say what is true about a barbaric and evil foe.

While people who self-identify as “muslim” may or may not adhere to sharia as required under penalty of death in Islam, their lack of adherence to sharia does not constitute a different “version” of Islam.

Islam requires muslims to submit to Allah’s sovereign law which is sharia.

All authoritatively published sharia comes from the Koran and the example of Islam’s prophet Mohammad.

There is one Quran which commands warfare against the non-muslim world until Islam (sharia) rules the world – it must because Allah’s law is perfect according to Islam.

There was only one Mohammad who is identified in the Koran as a “beautiful pattern of conduct” for all muslims to follow.  Mohammad tortured, killed, married a six year old, permitted people to be killed who mocked him, permitted sex slaves, and waged war on those who did not convert to Islam or submit to Islam.

No gray area in sharia on these matters.  Warfare against non-muslim is obligatory until the world is under sharia.

Islam divides the world into the Dar al Islam (House of Islam where sharia is the law of the land) and the Dar al Harb (House of War).  The stated purpose of Islam is to eliminate the Dar al Harb until the entire world is under the House of Islam and sharia.  The vehicle to do this is called “Jihad.”

Simple.

Many people have a hard time swallowing the simplicity of Islam’s goals for a number of reasons.  That does not change the truth.

Learn to speak the truth about this threat.  Time is running out.  As we see citizens of Europe arrested for using social media to share their views, publishing photos online, or simply standing in front of a court filming muslim gang-rapists, liberty is under assault.

The least we can do is speak truth about it.

UTT encourages you to:

  1. Learn how to respond to typical comments from ignorant people about this threat.
  2. Study sharia as it relates to this war.
  3. Purchase UTT’s books and DVD’s to learn more about this threat.
  4. Be bold and speak truth as a way to honor those who gave their lives for our liberty.

U.S. Islamic Schools Teaching What ISIS Teaches

Understanding the Threat, by Stephanie Ameiss, April 26, 2018:

Would it be a problem if ISIS jihadis were teaching in U.S. Islamic schools?

If you answer “Yes” then why is it okay to have the same material ISIS teaches being taught in U.S. Islamic schools?

The text book What Islam is All About is the most widely used 7th grade text book being taught in Islamic schools across America.

In the description of how to use this book, author Yahiya Emerick  explains, “Nearly every statement, paragraph or teaching is followed by reference from the Koran.”

As is taught at the highest level schools of Islamic jurisprudence, What Islam is All About teaches that Islam is not a religion, but a complete way of life governed by sharia (Islamic law).

This textbook for 7th grade children teaches there are 3 duties in Islam:  Dawah, Jihad, and Encouraging Good & Forbidding Evil (“good” and “evil” as defined by sharia).

Dawah is the call or invitation to Islam, and is mandatory before muslims can wage jihad.

“The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…and the war continues until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax in accordance with the word of Allah Most High.”

[Um dat al Salik, Islamic Sacred Law]

What Islam is All About teaches children that “Jihad” is “most often associated with physically confronting evil and wrongdoing” and the book has a picture of a tank, just in case the children are confused about its meaning.

Ensuring the children understand the duty of jihad in Allah’s eyes, this textbook teaches muslim-American children that those who are killed in jihad are “martyrs” or “Shahids” who immediately go to paradise.

In fact, this is exactly what doctrinal Islam teaches.

The Islamic legal definition of jihad in sharia (Islamic law) is warfare against non-Muslims.

Sharia (Islamic law) clearly states:  “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims”  (Um Dat al Salik, Reliance of the Traveller, Book O9.0)

To be clear, U.S. citizens who attend U.S. Islamic schools are being taught to preform Dawah before they wage Jihad, and that both are duties of all muslims.

From What Islam is All About:

“If anyone dies in a Jihad they automatically will go to paradise.”

“Don’t think that those who were killed in Allah’s Cause are dead. No, they are alive, finding their bounty in the presence of their Lord.”  Koran 3:169

 

What Islam is All About  explains “There is no such thing as terrorism in Islam. Nor can a Muslim ever be a fundamentalist because there is only one way to follow Islam.”

In Islam, “Terrorism” means killing a muslim without right, i.e. killing a muslim for a non-sharia prescribed reason.

On March 12, 2018, 17 year old Corey Johnson, of Jupiter, Florida, spent the night at a friend’s house he knew for over 10 years.  Yet, Corey killed another boy staying over by slitting his throat, and stabbed his friend’s mother and younger brother before being arrested.

Corey did what he did because, according to him, the Koran commands him to do such things.  Specifically, in this case, to kill those who mock Islam or muslims.

What Islam is All About  explains, the goal of Islam is to promote peace, justice and order in society. This means peace according to Sharia.

It goes on to say “The basis of the legal and political system is the Sharia of Allah” and “The duty of muslim citizens is to be loyal to the Islamic State.”

How is any of this contrary to the teachings of Al Qaeda, Hamas, ISIS, Boko Haram, Abu Sayef, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Shabaab or any other jihadi organization on the planet?

What’s the Difference Between a Habit and a Headscarf?

Citizen Warrior, Sept. 3, 2017:

Why are some people vehemently against a Muslim headscarf but have no objection to a nun’s habit? What’s the difference?

The main difference is the ideology represented by the clothing. Islam’s ideology is 61 percentpolitical and only 39 percent religious. That is, 61 percent of the Koran is about what Muslims should do with non-Muslims.

A Muslim is obligated to strive to establish the law of Allah in all nations, imposing it against the will of non-Muslims if necessary. Islamic law is very detailed and specific, and includes the death penalty for apostatesand gays, women are legally only worth a half a man, etc. The Muslim headscarf is one of the few visible signs of a commitment to the fundamental principles of Islam. That’s why people are bothered by it.

But aren’t Christians are obliged to “establish the rule of Christ in all nations?” Isn’t a nun’s habit a visible sign of commitment to the fundamental principles of Christianity?

That’s seems like a legitimate counter-argument, but are there “Christian countries?” That is, a country where the “laws of Christianity” are imposed on everyone in that country?

So far, there are 58 Muslim countries, and orthodox Muslims are dedicated to expanding that. These countries have joined together to form the largest global organization outside the UN, and they form the largest voting bloc in the UN. They have been pushing to legally impose Islamic blasphemy laws on the entire world, which means legally nobody would be able to have this conversation, even in “free nations.” It would be illegal to criticize Islamic doctrine. It is already illegal in many countries.

Islam is having a huge and growing influence on world affairs. Everyone should learn more about this ideology. It isn’t like other religions. The closest religion to it is Scientology, and it’s not even close.

The assumptions people make about Islam are mostly wrong. But those assumptions are guiding our legal policies, and that is dangerous.

But wait a minute. Doesn’t all this only apply to the most extreme and fundamentalist followers of Islam? Wouldn’t the views of extreme and fundamentalist Christians be just as disturbing? It isn’t fair to paint all Muslims with this same brush, is it? We could say all Scientologists are bad people, but that isn’t the case either.

First of all, we’re not talking about Muslims. We’re talking about Islam, which is a set of written documents. It is a written ideology. When we say “orthodox Muslim,” we mean someone who follows the principles written in Islamic doctrine. Yes, of course, there are many Muslims who do not follow the doctrine, just as there are Christians who don’t follow the written doctrine in the Bible.

But what this argument obscures is that the orthodox Muslims are not misguided. They are doing what it says they must do in their written holy book. It says in the Koran 91 times that a Muslim should follow the example of Muhammad in every aspect. And Muhammad (according to biographies of Muhammad written by Muslims for Muslims) raided caravans, led battles, tortured people, ordered assassinations, and personally oversaw the beheading of 800 Jews. He captured and held slaves. He raped women. He started having sex with his favorite wife when she was nine years old. This is not horrible, slanderous rumor aimed to discredit Muhammad. This is taught with a straight face in Islamic universities, without any hint of embarrassment. This was the messenger of Allah and he could do no wrong.

A fundamentalist is one who follows the teachings closely. So the actual teachings make a big difference. And all we’re saying is that the teachings of Islam are dangerous to non-Muslims. In Islamic doctrine, Muslims are the best of people and non-Muslims are the worst of creatures. This is not a conspiracy theory. This stuff is very easy to find out. You don’t have to trust anyone’s opinion. Just read the Koran. The Muslims who are true believers (orthodox) are counting on people not wanting to know.

In a conversation about this, the other day, someone brought up a good example: the Amish. They have special dress and customs but they don’t seek to impose it on anyone else. That’s the difference. And it’s a big difference.

Look up the Holy Land Foundation trial. The FBI raided the house of a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and found a document laying out their plan for our country. So far they have 73 legal organizations in America bent on replacing our laws with Islamic law. One organization has been altering the way Islam is portrayed in school textbooks. One organization puts pressure on Hollywood to make sure Islam is portrayed positively in movies. One organization sues people who try to educate others about what Islam is, or gets them fired from their jobs.

Scientologists aren’t bad people, by the way. Most people who read the statements above would think I was slandering Scientologists. But I was talking about Scientology, the ideology. Specifically, I was referring to the “fair game” policy of Scientology. Again, it is a written document, and followed by the true believers. It says that if someone leaves Scientology (becomes an apostate), they are fair game. They can be tricked, lied to, sued, harassed.

But that’s not as bad as Islamic doctrine. Islam says the penalty for apostasy is death.

Think about something for a minute. If someone says they’re a member of a group that has a written ideology, would you assume they believe in at least some of the tenets of that ideology? Of course. Otherwise, why claim your membership? It’s not always the case, of course. Oskar Schindler was a member of the Nazi party, after all.

But if you could choose who would be your next door neighbor or who would date your daughter, would you voluntarily choose someone who claims membership in a dangerous ideology? They might not be “true believers.” But on the other hand, many Muslims who were perfectly nice people and not true believers were reached by the more orthodox who educated them on their obligations as a Muslim. They said, “You say you’re a Muslim, but have you read the Koran? Do you know what you should be doing?” And they are “radicalized” which is a politically correct way of saying they began following the written doctrine and the example of the founder of Islam.

By the way, I’m not a Christian. I’m’ not any religion. And I’m not out to slander any particular religion. All I did was read Islamic doctrine and biographies of Muhammad. I wasn’t trying to find out that Islam is evil. I just wanted to know what was really true because we’ve got some people saying it’s a religion of peace and some people saying it’s a religion of violence. I wanted to know for myself rather than listen to the opinions of others.

I went on a decade-long program of reading, including lots of pro-Islam books and the Koran, which I read twice from beginning to end. It’s a fascinating subject to study. Especially the life story of Muhammad. It is completely mind blowing that someone like that founded a religion. And that the religion (the doctrine, not the people) reflects his personality. I would never have believed it, and I can tell many people don’t believe it and don’t want to believe it. But if they want to be well-rounded, if they want to be an educated member of the modern world, it seems to me that one of the things they should really know about is Islam as it is, and not how they wish it was or how others want them to think about it. They should find out for themselves.

Oh yeah, back to the headscarf. The reason people don’t like it is that the headscarf says, “I believe in the tenets of Islam” and any non-Muslim who knows what those tenets are will not like them. Also, researchers have discovered that when the women in an area with a high Muslim population begin wearing headscarves, it is a signal that the Muslims in the area are becoming more devout (more “extreme,” more fundamentalist). It is a visible sign of increasing devotion to the fundamental principles of Islamic doctrine, which includes an intolerance for non-Muslims and non-Islamic laws, and usually foreshadows violence to non-Muslims and those Muslims who are “insufficiently Islamic.” That’s why people make such a big deal about Islamic head and face coverings. That’s why France and other countries have banned them and many are considering it. 

I personally think it’s foolish. If you have a  visible sign of growing fundamentalism, why would you ban it? To blind yourself? On the other hand, maybe it would help weaken the fundamentalism. And it would certainly help women be free of the obligation to do it in those countries.

What about the nun’s habit? Being a nun is voluntary. Catholic men are not likely to beat nuns if they don’t wear their habits, but orthodox Muslims have been known to beat Muslim and non-Muslim women who don’t cover up, and I have yet to read a report of a Catholic man throwing acid into the face of a woman because she was not wearing her habit. Orthodox Muslim men have done that in many places in the world.

People who are relatively ignorant of Islam are puzzled by the push toward banning headscarves, and would like to write it off as just ignorant bigotry. But if they looked a little deeper, they might find sensible reasons for it.

Twitter Flags Saying ‘Islam Is NOT a Religion of Peace’ as Possible ‘Hateful Conduct’

The logo of social network site Twitter reflected in a pair of glasses. Twitter says it suspended more than 375,000 accounts for violations linked to the promotion of terrorism in the last six months of 2016. Dominic Lipinski/PA Wire URN: 30627884

PJ Media, by Robert Spencer, Sept. 6, 2017:

A few weeks ago I noticed that the hashtag #ConfessYourUnpopularOpinion was trending on Twitter. So I thought I would have a little fun, posted the tweet below, and forgot about it — until this weekend, when I received this email warning me that the tweet was being evaluated for possible violation of Twitter’s “hateful conduct policy”:

Dear Twitter user,

We are writing to inform you that certain content on your Twitter account @jihadwatchRS has been flagged, for possible violation of Twitter’s hateful conduct policy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175054), specifically:

We are sending you this notification to allow you to evaluate it.

If it is determined that the flagged content does not violate our hateful conduct policy, Twitter may still withhold content in France if the content appears to violate the laws of France.

For more information on our Country Withheld Content policy please see this page: https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169222

If you believe we have contacted you in error, please reply to this email and let us know.

Sincerely,

Twitter

“We are sending you this notification to allow you to evaluate it,” said Twitter.

All right. Let’s do that.

I could quote violent passages from the Qur’an, but those might be waved away with the dismissive and erroneous claim that the Bible contains similar exhortations to violence. Let’s focus instead on what Islamic authorities say — because one should get the impression that Islam is not a religion of peace from the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib).

Shafi’i school

A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University — one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world — as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy stipulates about jihad that:

[T]he caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians … until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.

It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only:

… provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) … while remaining in their ancestral religions. ( ‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, unless one believes the claims of the Islamic State, and hence the oft-repeated claim that ISIS, et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked.

The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: ‘Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that?

“ [N]othing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).

Hanafi school

A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons. From the call to Islam:

… the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.

However:

“[I]f the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes:

[I]n the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.

In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school

The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed:

[S]ince lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.

This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam.

Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice,sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. … The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee is an assistant professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes 12th century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd:

Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book … is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.

Nyazee concludes:

This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation [of non-Muslims].

All this makes it clear that there is abundant reason to believe that Islam is indeed inherently violent.

It would be illuminating if Twitter produced some quotations from Muslim authorities they consider “authentic,” and explained why the authorities I’ve quoted above and others like them are inauthentic. While in reality there is no single Muslim authority who can proclaim what is “authentic” Islam, and thus it would be prudent not to make sweeping statements about what “authentic Islam” actually is, clearly there are many Muslims who believe that authentic Islam is inherently violent and not a “Religion of Peace.”

Are they all hateful “Islamophobes”?

Is Twitter going to drop this tweet, and probably soon enough ban me altogether, for telling unwelcome truths? Have at it, you simpering millennial totalitarians with your horn-rimmed glasses and your lattes. Before too long, the evil that you are enabling will turn its attention to you.