FIRST-TIME RELEASE ON VIDEO: Glenn Beck interviews Robert Spencer on The History of Jihad

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, October 2, 2018:

Glenn Beck recently interviewed me; now for the first time the video of our conversation is available. Meanwhile, in this podcast, Beck discusses my being deplatformed and silenced, and talks about our interview, saying: “You can hear that whole interview. It’s fascinating, and I highly recommend it. In fact, I don’t even know if you can do this, but I’d burn it to DVD. I highly recommend that you listen to this guy, and make your own mind up. But do your own homework. Find out why you disagree with him. It will make you stronger either way.”

You can order The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS here.

Video: Robert Spencer Gives Three Lessons From Islamic History for Today’s Policymakers

  1. Jihad has always been a mainstream feature of Islam. Jihad is not a modern development.
  2. There has been no organized internal resistance or majority of moderate Muslims trying to stop Jihad violence. Islamic reform means adhering to fundamentalist Islamic doctrine. Any reformers advocating changing Islamic doctrine have been killed or marginalized.
  3. Jihadis have always had help from infidels.

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, September 19, 2018:

If these lessons were heeded, we would avoid numerous foreign and domestic policy mistakes.

On September 13, 2018, I spoke at the Freedom Center’s Wednesday Morning Club in Los Angeles. Introducing my new and bestselling book, The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, I discussed three lessons from Islamic history that are unknown in the West today, and are often outright denied by those Leftists who are rewriting history in service of contemporary political agendas. I show how these lessons, if heeded, have massive implications for American foreign and domestic policy.

Order The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS here now.

For Islamic Terrorists, Jihad Does Not Stop When Jailed

IPT News, by Patrick Dunleavy, September 14, 2018:

“I am ready to die for the Caliphate, prison is nothing.”

This was the declaration of Ali Saleh, a 25-year-old man from New York City who was arrested in 2015 by members of the FBI and the New York Police Department for providing material support to a terrorist organization. Saleh had attempted on several occasions to travel to Syria, join ISIS, and become a mujahid. He pleaded guilty to the charges in July. His words were not the idle braggadocio of a wayward youth. Less than two weeks before his guilty plea, Saleh plunged a shankinto a correction officer at the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center, reportedly smiling as he did, telling the wounded officer, “I hope you die.”

The guard survived. Saleh was indicted Aug. 28 and charged with assaulting a federal officer and possessing contraband – the shank – in prison.

This is not the first time a terrorist has tried to kill while in jail.

During a Nov. 1, 2000 escape attempt, al-Qaida terrorist Mamdouh Mahmud Salim and his co-defendant Khalfan Khamis Mohamed lured Correction Officer Louis Pepe into their cell and then stabbed him in his eye with a jailhouse knife. After stabbing him they poured a boiling liquid substance into the eye socket. The blade penetrated Pepe’s brain, leaving him permanently disabled.

Salim and Mohamed were prisoners in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City awaiting sentencing for their roles in al-Qaida’s 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania, killing 11 people.

In May 2013, Muslim extremists at the HMP Full Sutton prison in Yorkshire took a warden hostage and threatened to decapitate him to show their support for the terrorists who had savagely attacked and killed British soldier Lee Rigby on the streetsof Woolwich in London.

The incarcerated terrorists also demanded the release of radical Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, who was being held by UK authorities for his ties to terrorist organizations.

Assaulting staff and attempting to escape is not the only threat posed by terrorists in prison. In 2017, Ahmad Khan Rahimi, also known as the “Chelsea Bomber,” distributed plans for making an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) to inmates attending services in the prison mosque.

The list goes on.

Ali Saleh already faced 35 years in prison before he attacked the guard. If convicted in that attack, his sentence could increase by 20 years, making him 80 years old when he becomes eligible for release.

Chances are, he’ll try again to attack prison staff.

Islamic terrorists simply do not fear the U.S. prison system.

This attitude can be attributed to several factors. One is that Islamic terrorist leaders such as Ayman al-Zawahri have publicly announced their support for their imprisoned members in communiques and in online outlets like al-Qaida’s Inspire magazine.

They tell their members they are not forgotten and they pray for their release so they can rejoin the fight.

Another equally important factor is that terrorists know that they will be placed in the general prison population with other common criminals and will be afforded all the privileges and rights that come with that.

Programs that were originally designed to help in the rehabilitation process and the re-establishment of family ties can be used by terrorists for nefarious purposes. Phone calls, visits, even educational and religious volunteer programs can, and have been exploited for jihadist goals.

A terrorist is not rendered harmless when incarcerated; he will act when he can, and where he can’t, he will influence.

Not all terrorists are in solitary confinement or Supermax prisons. The vast majority transition from maximum security prisons to lesser secure facilities over time. Rather than fear the system, they milk it by demanding their rights under the Constitution they are seeking to destroy.

There is no specific program mandated by the Bureau of Prisons or any state correctional agency that specifically addresses the jihadist movement. At this point in the war on terrorism, 25 years after the first World Trade Center attack, isn’t it time we figured it out so that the Louis Pepe’s and Ali Saleh’s victim are safe and we stop the conveyor belts inside prison walls that often turn petty criminals into jihadists?

People who attempt to join, or declare allegiance to an international terrorist organization that has declared war on the United States and Western democracies, they become enemy combatants. They should be isolated from other inmates and housed in a maximum security prison. Treated humanely, not tortured or abused, but not released until the hostilities are over or the enemy has surrendered.

IPT Senior Fellow Patrick Dunleavy is the former Deputy Inspector General for New York State Department of Corrections and author of The Fertile Soil of Jihad. He currently teaches a class on terrorism for the United States Military Special Operations School.

Video: Robert Spencer on The Hagmann Report on jihad in history and the destruction of the West today

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, June 17, 2018:

On The Hagmann Report several days ago, I discuss the history of Islam and conquest and how it relates to our current day situation both in America and Europe.

Preorder The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS here.

June 15, 1389: Islam Enters and Conquers Eastern Europe

The Battle of Kosovo

PJ Media, by Raymond Ibrahim, June 15, 2018:

Editor’s note: The following account is partially excerpted from the author’s new book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (with a foreword by Victor Davis Hanson). 

—————————-

Why Eastern Europeans are much more reluctant to accept Muslim migrants than their Western counterparts can be traced back to circumstances surrounding a pivotal battle that took place today, June 15, in the year 1389. The Battle of Kosovo raged between Muslim invaders and Eastern European defenders, or the ancestors of those many Eastern Europeans today vociferously hostile to Islam.

Because the jihad is as old as Islam, it has been championed by diverse peoples (Arabs in the Middle East, Moors — Berbers and Africans — in Spain and Western Europe, etc.). Islam’s successful entry into Eastern Europe was spearheaded by the Turks, specifically that tribe centered in westernmost Anatolia (or Asia Minor) and thus nearest to Europe — the Ottoman Turks, so-named after their founder Osman Bey. As he lay dying in 1323, his parting words to his son and successor, Orhan, were for him “to propagate Islam by yours arms.”

This his son certainly did; the traveler Ibn Batutua, who once met Orhan in Bursa, observed that, although the jihadi had captured some one hundred Byzantine fortresses, “he had never stayed for a whole month in any one town,” because he “fights with the infidels continually and keeps them under siege.” Christian cities fell like dominos: Smyrna in 1329, Nicaea in 1331, and Nicomedia in 1337. By 1340, the whole of northwest Anatolia was under Turkic control. By now, and to quote a European contemporary:

[T]he foes of the cross, and the killers of the Christian people, that is, the Turks, [were] separated from Constantinople by a channel of three or four miles.

By 1354, the Ottoman Turks, under Orhan’s son, Suleiman, managed to cross over the Dardanelles and into the abandoned fortress town of Gallipoli, thereby establishing their first foothold in Europe: “Where there were churches he destroyed them or converted them to mosques,” writes an Ottoman chronicler. “Where there were bells, Suleiman broke them up and cast them into fires. Thus, in place of bells there were now muezzins.”

Cleansed of all Christian “filth,” Gallipoli became, as a later Ottoman bey boasted, “the Muslim throat that gulps down every Christian nation — that chokes and destroys the Christians.” From this dilapidated but strategically situated fortress town, the Ottomans launched a campaign of terror throughout the countryside, always convinced they were doing God’s work. “They live by the bow, the sword, and debauchery, finding pleasure in taking slaves, devoting themselves to murder, pillage, spoil,” explained Gregory Palamas, an Orthodox metropolitan who was taken captive in Gallipoli, adding:

[A]nd not only do they commit these crimes, but even — what an aberration — they believe that God approves them!

After Orhan’s death in 1360 and under his son Murad I — the first of his line to adopt the title “Sultan” — the westward jihad into the Balkans began in earnest and was unstoppable. By 1371 he had annexed portions of Bulgaria and Macedonia to his sultanate, which now so engulfed Constantinople that “a citizen could leave the empire simply by walking outside the city gates.”

Unsurprisingly, then, when Prince Lazar of Serbia (b. 1330) defeated Murad’s invading forces in 1387, “there was wild rejoicing among the Slavs of the Balkans. Serbians, Bosnians, Albanians, Bulgarians, Wallachians, and Hungarians from the frontier provinces all rallied around Lazar as never before, in a determination to drive the Turks out of Europe.”

Murad responded to this effrontery on June 15, 1389, in Kosovo.

There, a Serbian-majority coalition augmented by Hungarian, Polish, and Romanian contingents — twelve thousand men under the leadership of Lazar — fought thirty thousand Ottomans under the leadership of the sultan himself. Despite the initial downpour of Turkic arrows, the Serbian heavy cavalry plummeted through the Ottoman frontlines and broke the left wing; the Ottoman right, under Murad’s elder son Bayezid, reeled around and engulfed the Christians. The chaotic clash continued for hours.

On the night before battle, Murad had beseeched Allah “for the favour of dying for the true faith, the martyr’s death.” Sometime near the end of battle, his prayer was granted. According to tradition, Miloš Obilić, a Serbian knight, offered to defect to the Ottomans on condition that, in view of his own high rank, he be permitted to submit before the sultan himself. They brought him before Murad and, after Milos knelt in false submission, he lunged at and plunged a dagger deep into the Muslim warlord’s stomach (other sources say “with two thrusts which came out at his back”). The sultan’s otherwise slow guards responded by hacking the Serb to pieces. Drenched in and spluttering out blood, Murad lived long enough to see his archenemy, the by now captured Lazar, brought before him, tortured, and beheaded. A small conciliation, it may have put a smile on the dying martyr’s face.

Murad’s son Bayezid instantly took charge: “His first act as Sultan, over his father’s dead body, was to order the death, by strangulation with a bowstring, of his brother. This was Yaqub, his fellow-commander in the battle, who had won distinction in the field and popularity with his troops.” Next Bayezid brought the battle to a decisive end; he threw everything he had at the enemy, leading to the slaughter of every last Christian — but even more of his own men in the process.

So many birds flocked to and feasted on the vast field of carrion that posterity remembered Kosovo as the “Field of Blackbirds.” Though essentially a draw — or at best a Pyrrhic victory for the Ottomans — the Serbs, with less men and resources to start with in comparison to the ascendant Muslim empire, felt the sting more.

In the years following the battle of Kosovo, the Ottoman war machine became unstoppable: the nations of the Balkans were conquered by the Muslims — after withstanding a millennium of jihads, Constantinople itself permanently fell to Islam in 1453 — and they remained under Ottoman rule for centuries (as documented in my new book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West).

The collective memory of Eastern Europeans’ not too distant experiences with and under Islam should never be underestimated when considering why they are significantly more wary of — if not downright hostile to — Islam and its migrants than their Western counterparts.

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:

Terror Averted in Rotterdam

A tip from Spanish authorities saves Dutch lives.

Front Page Magazine, by Matthew Vadum, Aug. 24, 2017:

Authorities in the Netherlands foiled an apparent Muslim terrorist plot to attack a concert venue in Rotterdam while an American rock band with an Islamic-sounding name was performing there.

Authorities shut down the scheduled performance by Los Angeles act Allah-Las at a 1,000-person capacity club called Maassilo. The band’s name has attracted some unwanted attention in the Muslim world. Band members say they selected the name Allah, Arabic for the Muslim deity, because they wanted something that sounded “holy.” Lead singer Miles Michaud said: “We get emails from Muslims, here in the U.S. and around the world, saying they’re offended, but that absolutely wasn’t our intention.”

After being tipped off by Spanish police, on Wednesday Rotterdam police and counter-terrorism personnel located a van near the Maassilo venue bearing Spanish license plates and that reportedly contained “gas bottles.” The driver, a Spaniard, was detained, after he was observed by police going to and from the concert site repeatedly.

About 120 gas canisters were found at the suspected lair of the terrorist cell that used a rented van to mow down pedestrians last week in Barcelona, Spain. The night before the August 17 vehicular attack, two members of the terrorist cell are thought to have inadvertently blown themselves up in Alcanar, Spain, possibly while preparing terror materiel. At least 15 people were killed and 130 injured in a series of attacks by the cell.

According to one British media outlet,

It has since been claimed that the 12-strong terror cell planned to rent three large lorry-type vehicles, pack them each full of butane gas and TATP plastic explosive, and drive them into busy hotspots in Barcelona city. One van was to be driven into the Sagrada Familia, another was to be detonated on Las Ramblas, and the third was going to be blown up in Barcelona’s port area.

Of course, the foreign-born Muslim mayor of Rotterdam urged people not to connect the dots.

Ahmed Aboutaleb told a presser that there was no proven connection between the Spanish tip and the van. “We should not draw conclusions too fast.”

The ring that the police set up around the (concert hall) led to the detention of a bus with gas bottles. It would be wrong at this moment to pile up these facts and conclude: thus there was a plan to attack with gas bottles, et cetera, because that was the picture last week in Barcelona. I would be careful with that. Whether the bus with gas bottles can be linked to the threat, that cannot now be established.

Not that the judgment or public pronouncements of Aboutaleb, a Muslim immigrant of Riffian Berber ancestry who was born in Morocco and is a Dutch-Moroccan dual citizen, can necessarily be trusted.

Aboutaleb’s lax approach to Muslim terrorism is hardly uncommon on his continent. National and sub-national governments in European countries generally range from being partly to wholly in denial about the Islamofascist threat as they bend over backwards to appease their enemies and not be smeared as Islamophobes.

Islamists themselves are increasingly targeting music venues.

Islamic State claimed responsibility for the bombing of the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, on May 22 that claimed 22 innocent lives.

Four men shouting “Allahu akbar” burst into the Bataclan concert hall in Paris on Nov. 13, 2015, as part of a coordinated, simultaneous assault on various sites around the French capital. A total of 130 people were killed in Paris, including 89 at Bataclan, and more than 300 were injured around the city. The band performing at the Bataclan was the Palm Desert, California-based Eagles of Death Metal.

England has been a hotbed of Muslim terrorist activity, with at least three deadly, mass-casualty events so far this year.

Apart from the Manchester bombing, on March 22, a car was driven into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge, London. Five people lost their lives and almost 50 were injured. On June 3, men in a van drove into people on London Bridge, crashed, and then stabbed other people at Borough Market. The end result was 8 dead and 48 injured.

France has also been heavily targeted by Islamists this year.

On Feb. 3, there was a machete attack on a soldier at the Louvre in Paris. On March 18, a man was killed when he tried to seize a police officer’s gun at Paris Orly Airport. On April 20, police were fired on at the Champs-Élysées. Islamic State claimed responsibility. On June 6 a police officer was attacked with a hammer outside Notre-Dame Cathedral. On June 19 there was a car ramming attack on a police vehicle at the Champs-Élysées. The attacker claimed allegiance to Islamic State. On August 9, a car was driven into soldiers in Levallois-Perret, Hauts-de-Seine, injuring six.

Elsewhere in Europe so far this year, there was the April 7 truck attack in Stockholm, Sweden (5 dead, 14 injured) and the July 28 mass-stabbing at a supermarket in Hamburg, Germany (1 dead, 6 injured). On April 3 there was a suicide-bombing on public transit in St. Petersburg, Russia, with 15 victims killed and 87 injured. An al-Qaeda affiliate claimed responsibility but a security service blamed Islamic State.

And there is still a little over four months left in 2017.

Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, “Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers.”