Category Archives: Robert Spencer

Talkin' Those Meltdown Crusades Blues

The Big Beat of the Left and the Big Lie of Islam
team to undermine western civilization.

YAWN. NINETY-FIVE PERCENT of the people must be genetically inclined to be wrong 95% of the time, I suppose. But do they all have to be so obvious in their flip to skullduggery?

Or put more politely another way:

An' here again I sit so patiently
waiting to find out what price you
have to pay to get out of going through
all these [damned] things twice.

Take a gander at the soggy mush of radio personality and high-ranking dhimmi—Garrison Keillor—as he frolics through the dandelion fields of gross dhimmitude along with a gentle rejection of said mush by meat-chewing, fact-resolving, hard-working author and anti-Jihadist scholar Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch.

Perhaps Keillor should jump up off his stool, wring out his PC drawers and get real. Let's begin with any number of Muslim sites which contradict this screwball western-dhimmi propaghanda. Here's one called Muslims Against Sharia, who are very clear about what is wrong with Islam, historically and currently.

Let's start here: THE BIG LIE

The Big Lie is taqiyya. The Allah-sanctioned lie is defined quite clearly in the Qu'ran.

Interview With Robert Spencer

While I have little truck with Mr. Pat Robertson's crow whose evangelical and extracurricular follies, in my opinion, are too many and too diverse to list here, I do harbor a certain measure of respect for the person and the scholarly work of Robert Spencer, who has authored several books and operates the Jihad Watch website, a valuable resource to this Bellicose Augur. Here is an interview with Spencer conducted during the February '06 "cartoon rage" then whipping across the globe as the Islam street violently protested the publishing of a set of political cartoons in the major newspaper of Denmark.

Suffice it to say, now that I am beginning to utilize the YouTube phenomenon more regularly as a material resource, other dated but still critically important interviews and videos will find a place in this blog. As a closing comment however, I would like to say that I found it both humorous and frankly inspiring as Robertson, when introducing Spencer's book, stumbled over the title in speaking of "The Politically CORRECT" Guide To Islam.

Frankly, all infidels, and that includes Jews, Christians, hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, pagans, and atheists should get to know what the Islam thinks about Christianity and its views on Islamic eschatology. Whether an accident of history or a carefully scripted response to "those people of the book" by some human or supernatural intelligence, it is a twisted version taken straight from the Bible.

The Importance Of Being Earnest

This is from Robert Spencer today. Some call him alarmist. Others call him liar. I call him a brave patriot. He is the best-selling author of several books on this topic, but I will leave it to you, Ed, to form your own opinion. However, this article does clarify what I meant this morning when I said, "Some say the State Department is the weakest link [in our current defense against this growing menace called Islam.]

Your reply that State gets its marching orders from the top doesn't change matters. Dr. Condoleezza Rice and President Bush both have fallen unredeemably out of favor with this crowd [who once supported them]. I know you are a busy and dedicated man in the Department, but I just wanted to point out a few talking points that would be fine dinner conversation for somebody.


Walid Phares
Walid Phares

Is Al-Qaeda terrorism "jihad martyrdom" or simply "irhabi" lawlessness? During the question period after my notorious YAF talk last Thursday, it came up again: one of the students asked if we weren't conferring legitimacy on Osama and Co. by calling them jihadists instead of something like mufsidoon: evildoers. That is just one small indication of how influential this idea has become—and of course it enjoys great influence in the State Department. Now one of its foremost proponents, a man named Jim Guirard, who called me up a few years ago and spent a great length of time trying to convince me to get on board with this idea, writes in its defense in Accuracy In Media. He's responding to this excellent column by Walid Phares, about which I commented at some length here.

Guirard affects a cutesy, folksy writing style, beginning with the three question marks and hapax legoumenon he uses in his title, "Is AQ-style Terrorism 'Jihadi Martyrdom' or 'Irhabi Murderdom' ???" Perhaps it is unsporting or invincibly crabbed of me to note such a thing, but I must say I found it incongruous that a man who has the Pentagon's ear and confers with the highest American military officials writes like a lovestruck teenage girl. With all his cuteness and misspellings, Guirard seems practically to be begging not to be taken seriously. But since he is taken seriously, and his ideas are taken seriously, they are worth dealing with again.

In a recent article in the Family Security Matters website—innocently re-printed by on July 18—Lebanese expatriot [sic!] Dr. Walid Phares quite sharply, and by name, attacked me and three like-minded anti-terrorism strategists (Dr. Michael Waller of the Institute for World Politics, Dr. Doug Streussand [sic!] of the Marine Corps Staff and Command College and Col. Harry Tunnell of the National Defense University).

That's "expatriate" and "Streusand."

That angry writer's complaint was that the four of us are refusing to follow his (and so many other's) current addiction to Osama bin Laden's self-sanctifying language of so-called "Jihadi Martyrdom"—namely, the five-word al Qaeda narrative of so-called Jihad (holy war) by purported mujahideen (holy warriors) and alleged shuhada (martyrs) who are supposedly destined for Jennah (Paradise) as a reward for killing all of us kuffr (infidels) and in due course disposing of al-Shaitan al-Kabir (the Great Satan). Dr. Phares insists that this is the one and only valid framework within which to properly and sufficiently attack al Qaeda-style Terrorism.

Phares doesn't say that at all, of course. He says that the concept of hiraba, unlawful warfare, which Guirard says we should use to label contemporary jihadist activity, "implies that a 'genuine' war against a real enemy does exist and that these hotheaded soldiers have simply acted without orders. Hence this cunning explanation puts 'spin' on Jihad but leaves the core idea of Jihadism completely intact." Thus obligingly calling jihadism hiraba could leave us open to having to confront in the near future a jihad deemed genuine by those so anxious for us to relabel Osama's efforts. In other words, it doesn't get to the heart of the matter: the persistence of religious violence arising within an Islamic context. It leaves that wide open as a possibility for the future.

But Guirard doesn't deal with this point. Instead, he contents himself, like Dinesh D'Souza and so many others, with the manipulative little slur of charging that his opponent agrees with bin Laden—with all the unsavory associations that brings: they're both hotheads, hardliners, fascists at heart, doncha know?

But this sidesteps the questions of why the version of Islam purveyed by Osama and the other jihadists has gained such traction within the Islamic world, and why the jihadist claim to represent "true" or "pure" Islam has so much resonance. And since Guirard and his ilk refuse to acknowledge that that is even happening, they can't formulate any worthwhile response to it.

In sharp contrast, Marine Corps LtG James Mattis has recently condemned this sort of AQ narrative as "tyranny in false religious garb." But when we, the four accused, recommend a new counter narrative which attacks the Salafi-Wahhabi-UBL conspiracy's deceitful self-labeling, Dr. Phares berates us (as he might now General Mattis, as well?) as somehow "representing the views of classical Wahhabis and the Muslim Brotherhood" ( !!! )

Not quite. Phares actually said: "When researched, it turns out that this theory was produced by clerics of the Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood, as a plan to prevent Jihad and Jihadism from being depicted by the West and the international community as an illegal and therefore sanctioned activity." It is, again, a shame that Guirard did not see fit to address that except with a sneer.

But, of course, it is Walid Phares himself, not us, who is so insistently parroting al Qaeda's patently false description of itself and its suicide mass murders as "Jihadi" (Holy Guys) defenders of Allah and the Qur'an.

See, Guirard's fundamental assumption, behind the cutesy language ("'Jihadi' (Holy Guys)" indeed), is that jihad is a good thing, a holy thing, and that the jihadists have appropriated it in defiance of Islamic theology and law. And that therefore, if we start using the terms that actually apply to them and their activities—criminals, unlawful warfare, rather than jihadists and jihad—the moderate Muslim majority will feel empowered to rise up against them, and take back Islam.

It would be great if it were true. But unfortunately it's just a fantasy. The imperative to wage war against unbelievers in order to establish over them the hegemony of Islamic law wasn't invented by Al-Qaeda; it is taught by all the Sunni schools of jurisprudence, and by the Shi'ites also. This doesn't mean that every Muslim takes it seriously. But it does mean that it's just whistling in the dark to think that Al-Qaeda's claim to represent Islamic purity can't draw on genuine elements of Islamic theology that encourage bellicosity. Fantasy-based policymaking is never wise.

In sharp and everlasting contrast to this de facto embrace of the enemy's self-serving description of political, cultural and religious reality, this writer's proposed counter narrative condemns the al Qaeda, al Sadr, Hizballah, Hamas and other "Death to America" terrorists as waging Hirabah (unholy war, forbidden "war against society") by mufsiduun (evildoers, sinners and corrupters) and munafiquun (hypocrites) destined for Jahannam (Eternal Hellfire) as punishment for having become al Murtadd al Qaeda (the al Qaeda Apostasy) against Qur'anic Islam—namely, for having tried to drag all Muslims into a most unholy war against Abrahamic America and the West.

"This writer's proposed counter narrative..." (emphasis added). But do Muslims worldwide, whether jihadists or not, really listen to Jim Guirard's version of Islam? If there were major Islamic sects or leaders teaching this sort of thing and representing it as "Qur'anic Islam," that would be one thing. But there aren't.

Likewise Kilcullen's new lexicon, in Guirard's reprinted article below, is based not on reality but on what we really wish jihad were all about:

In further explanation of this "Know Thine Enemy" frame of reference for understanding who the Terrorists actually are, as opposed to who they falsely claim to be, the following is a "war of words" essay of mine which appeared in the June 29, 2007 issue of the Marine Corps--oriented website—entitled "Petraeus Aide's Call for a New Lexicon." Rather than my trying to paraphrase that carefully constructed truth-in-language thesis, here it is verbatim:

In his multi-faceted article, "New Paradigms For 21st Century Conflict," David Kilcullen of General David Petraeus' senior staff in Baghdad recommends five major initiatives to be taken in developing truly effective counterterrorism (COIN) strategies, operations and tactics against al Qaeda-style Terrorism (AQST).

In briefest of terms, these are to (1) Develop a New Lexicon, (2) Get the Grand Strategy Right, (3) Remedy the Imbalance in Government Capability, (4) Identify New Strategic Services, and (5) Develop Capacity For Strategic Information Warfare. While others will comment in learned fashion on all five of these topics in due course, this commentary will concern only the first—the proposed New Lexicon.

To make a medical analogy, this is an enemy which is not in the nature of a state-based, clearly definable tumor to be neatly cut out by a scalpel but is, instead, an ideology-based cancer which been metastasizing for several decades (particularly the last one) and is attacking far-flung elements of Western Civilization 'round the clock and seeking a "death by a thousand cuts" result.

The first of Kilcullen's five steps toward an effective antidote—a worldwide chemotherapy-type counterattack—on the raging AQST cancer is his call for "a new lexicon based on the actual, observed characteristics of [our] real enemies ..."

In so doing, he clearly recognizes that in order to meet Tsun-Tzu's ancient admonition that we must "Know The Enemy," we absolutely must have a truthful common language by which to achieve that end and then to communicate such knowledge effectively to multiple audiences.

Although he does not list particulars of this proposed new lexicon, here are more than a dozen of the Arabic and Islamic words of which he would almost surely approve. They are the words, the semantic tools and weapons, we will need to break out of the habit-of-language box (largely invented by Osama bin Laden himself) which currently depicts us as us the bad guys, the "infidels" and even "the Great Satan"—and which sanctifies suicide mass murderers as so-called jihadis and mujahideen ("holy guys") and "martyrs" on their heroic way to Paradise.

Importantly, the ubiquitous (It's everywhere! It's everywhere!!) word Jihad is entered four times, in order to more clearly define its several confusing and often conflicting meanings.

irhab (eer-HAB)—Arabic for terrorism, thus enabling us to call the al Qaeda-style killers irhabis, irhabists and irhabiyoun rather than the so-called "jihadis" and "jihadists" and "mujahideen" and "shahids" (martyrs) they badly want to be called. (Author's lament: Here we are, almost six years into a life-and-death War on Terrorism, and most of us do not even know this basic Arabic for terrorism.)

Hirabah (hee-RAH-bah)—Unholy War and forbidden "war against society" or what we would today call crimes against humanity. Among the many al Qaeda-style crimes and sins which constitute this most "unholy war" are such willful, and unrepented transgressions as those enumerated in the next section of this proposed glossary of terms.

Jihad al Akbar (gee-HAHD ahl AHK-bar)—this "Greater Jihad" is a personal and spiritual struggle or striving to become closer and more faithful to Allah and his teachings as set forth in the Qur'an.

Here is the problem with this whole endeavor in microcosm: Hassan Al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood), Abdullah Azzam (cofounder of Al-Qaeda) and others argued that the idea of jihad as a spiritual struggle as based on a weak hadith—a tradition of Muhammad that couldn't be taken as authentic. They gained many recruits by arguing this successfully among Muslims. And so now here come Kilcullen and Guirard, reminding Muslims that jihad is primarily an inner spiritual struggle. How will the Muslims who have bought the argument that all that is based on a weak hadith react? Will they lay down their arms? Or chuckle at the ignorant infidels?

Jihad al Saghir (gee-HAHD ahl Sahg-HEER)—"Lesser Jihad" can be a physical—and even a military—struggle to protect or to free Muslims and non-Muslims from oppression, but only in strict accordance with reasonable and non-terroristic standards set forth in the Qur'an, which provides that only the Caliph (or head-of-state?) can legally declare such a Jihad. Osama bin Laden is neither....

Fine. Until you realize that many Muslim authorities identify as "oppression" anything except a Sharia state. The implications of that for the above statement are clear. And only the state authority can declare a jihad? Unfortunately, there is a difference of opinion on this question among contemporary Islamic scholars. Some argue that Muslims may wage war in order to establish that Islamic state, and then continue to wage war against unbelievers under its aegis. Others contend that the Islamic state must be established by peaceful means, and only then may Muslims wage jihad warfare. The latter position was held by Syed Abul Ala Maududi, the influential Pakistani jihad theorist who died in 1979, Sheikh Muhammad Said Ramadan Al-Buti, and Sheikh Muhammad Naasir ud-Din Al-Albani. The former view is held by Islamic scholars such as Muhammad Amarah and Khair Haykel, as well as by Azzam and, of course, other mujahedin today.

It is important to note, however, that Maududi and Al-Buti, as well as others who hold this view, don't reject the idea of jihad against unbelievers in order to establish the hegemony of Islamic law. Maududi, after all, wrote that non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.”

So in other words, this is just a disagreement about means, not about ends.

...Just for starters, imagine the khawarij (outside the religion) al Qaeda's great difficulty in winning the approval of any truly devout and faithful Muslims whatever once these genocidal irhabis (terrorists) come to be viewed by the Umma (the Muslim World) as mufsiduun (evildoers) engaged in Hirabah (unholy war) and in murtadd (apostasy) against the Qur'an's God of Abraham—and as almost surely on their way to Jahannam (Eternal Hellfire) for their Satanic ways....

Yes, that would be great. But pretending that truly devout and faithful Muslims will follow the lead of non-Muslims in defining these things is naive in the extreme. Of course, to sustain the validity of such condemnatory labels, there must be a true-to-the-Quran basis for their application to the al Qaeda, al Sadr, Hizballah, Hamas and assorted other Terrorists. Indeed.

This is readily available in the fact that at the heart of AQST's own false labels and equally false promises of a sex-orgy Paradise is a pattern of plainly satanic and cultic violation of many of the fundamental precepts of authentic Islam—including such sinful transgressions and such de facto desecrations of the Qur'an as:

  • Wanton killing of innocents and noncombatants, including many peaceful Muslims

Here we go again. Define "innocent" and "noncombatant." British jihadist Anjem Chaudary says no non-Muslims are innocent. How will this stop him?

  • Decapitating the live and desecrating the dead bodies of perceived enemies
  • Committing and enticing others to commit suicide for reasons of intimidation

Qur'an 9:111 guarantees Paradise to those who "kill and are killed" for Allah. And that's not suicide, in the jihadist view. How will Guirard's lexicon overcome that idea?

  • Fomenting hatred among communities, nations, religions and civilizations
  • Ruthless warring against nations in which Islam is freely practiced
  • Issuing and inspiring unauthorized and un-Islamic fatwas (religious edicts)
  • Using some mosques as weapons depots and battle stations, while destroying others
  • Forcing extremist and absolutist versions (and perversions) of Islam on fellow Muslims, when the Qur'an clearly says that there shall be "no compulsion in religion"

Qutb and others argue that the "no compulsion" verse does not rule out fighting until "religion is for Allah." Will Guirard's use of this verse change any jihadist minds?

  • Distorting the word "infidels" to include all Christians, all Jews and many Muslims, as well—when the Qur'an calls them all "Children of the Book" (the Old Testament) and "Sons of Abraham," and calls Jesus one of Islam's five main Prophets.

People of the Book, not Children of the Book. Anyway, fine, don't call them infidels. They still must be fought and subjugated, per Qur'an 9:29.

  • Deliberate misreading, ignoring and perverting of passages of the Qur'an, the Hadith and the Islamic Jurisprudence (the Fiqh).

Such as? The jihadists claim that the peaceful Muslims do this. Guirard claims that the jihadists do it. The real challenge is to refute the jihadist use of Islamic texts and teachings in a way that blunts the force of jihadist recruitment. Peaceful Muslims haven't done it yet. One final note. Guirard argues that what he is doing here was done effectively during the Cold War:

A look-back lesson from the Cold War argues strongly that we should have done a far better "war of words" job of challenging—rather than all too often parroting—the Soviets' and Fascist Fidel Castro's false narrative of so-called "Liberation by purported Progressive Movements and alleged Popular Fronts who were destined for heaven-on-earth People's Democracies as a reward for killing us Reaganite Fascists and disposing of American Imperialism."

Recognize the remarkable parallels? Both then and today, the deadly dangerous problem is that of "semantic infiltration," which the late, great Senator Pat Moynihan and Dr. Fred Charles Ikle—Ronald Reagan's Under Secertary of Defense for Policy, who is today still active at the Center for Strategic and International Studies—carefully defined in the early 1980s as follows:

"Simply put, semantic infiltration is the process whereby we come to adopt the language of our adversaries in describing political reality. The most totalitarian regimes in the world would call themselves 'liberation movements.' It is perfectly predictable that they should misuse words to conceal their real nature. But must we aid them in that effort by repeating those words? Worse, do we begin to influence our own perceptions by using them?"

Back then, it was a case of Leninist, Maoist and Castroite tyranny wrapped up in false "Liberationist" lingo. Today, it is the neo-Leninist, fascist-Left and pseudo-Quranic narrative of "Jihadi Martyrdom" which General Jim Mattis so correctly condemns as "tyranny in false religious garb" while all too many of us continue the "useful idiocy" parroting.

(Le plus ca change, le plus c'est la meme chose! N'est-ce pas ??)

Sure. We should challenge the jihadist idea that Sharia equals justice. And we should call it tyranny. But that is not the same thing as formulating some genuine way to counter jihadist claims to represent true Islam. Inventing our own benign little Islam and hoping that Muslims will buy it won't do that.

CAIR Bullies Are Thwarted

Well, it looks like the tide is turning, and CAIR may be on the first wave back out to the sea from which it came. This is good news for America. This is good news for truly peaceful Muslims. This is good news for you, those enemies in waiting on the Left, who act as apologists for these interlopers, these invaders who are using our system to gain footing, only to have already voiced their agenda to replace the US Constitution with sharia law. How many times do they have to tell us these things. Yes, this is good news for you doubters and appeaser. You just don't know it yet.

Read it all. Check out the three links. Check out the parties in play. Do your homework people. Before it's too late.

PHILADELPHIA - The Legal Project of the Middle East Forum announces its support of Robert Spencer and the Young America's Foundation (YAF), the latest victims of what appears to be a targeted intimidation and defamation campaign by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) designed to silence critics of its organization.

Spencer, a well-respected author and the director of Jihad Watch, spoke today for YAF on "The Truth about CAIR" on the campus of George Washington University. As a consequence of this invitation, YAF's president Ron Robinson received a threatening and possibly defamatory letter written by CAIR's acting attorney, Joseph E. Sandler, of the law firm Sandler, Reiff & Young, P.C.

Sandler's letter (available in pdf format here) accuses Mr. Spencer, without offering any factual support, of being a "well-known purveyor of hatred and bigotry against Muslims," with "a history of false and defamatory statements." Sandler goes on to "demand that YAF cancel the subject session or else take steps to ensure that false and defamatory statements are not disseminated," and states an intention to pursue a "legal remedy" against YAF, should CAIR deem statements made by Spencer at the session "false and defamatory."

Imam Husham

CAIR's letter appears to be aimed at maliciously harming Spencer's reputation, interfering in his lawful employment, and aimed to discourage both Spencer and YAF from exercising their fundamental rights to free speech and assembly. Furthermore, the letter wrongfully implies that YAF has an independent duty to censor Spencer, and that it may be subject to suit for allowing Spencer to speak on private property. It is our opinion that CAIR's pre-emptive accusations are without merit, without any legal basis, and that CAIR has yet to prove any of its statements as true.

Therefore, the Legal Project hereby gives CAIR and its attorneys notice that it, too, will pursue "every available and appropriate legal remedy to redress any false or defamatory statements that are made" or have been made by CAIR and its attorneys against Spencer. We advise CAIR's staff to govern themselves accordingly.

The Legal Project, established by the Middle East Forum in June 2007, is dedicated to safeguarding the democratic liberties afforded by the Constitution to U.S. citizens, namely the rights to free speech and free assembly. The Legal Project protects researchers and analysts working on the topics of terrorism, terrorist funding, Islam, and Islamism against those who seek to silence them through intimidation, defamation, and predatory lawsuits.

Immediate release. For more information: John Matthies, (215) 546-5406, ext. 16, or

Memorial Day 2007

Jeep Liberty Renegade
Jeep Liberty Renegade

TODAY, as I wheeled through southern Maryland, winding from Annapolis to Scotland Island and back to Washington with my wife in our Jeep Liberty Renegade, driving past so many American flags on display, some fresh and in full wave, others ragged and woefully ripe for its "dignified burning" which is in the officially proscribed act of retiring it, I realized once again that in my limited lifetime of fifty-one years, I have never personally known someone who has sacrificed his or her life in service to our nation, specifically in a military uniform.

I have never suffered the loss that so many in our nation and others have suffered in losing to an untimely death a dear relative or a close friend while performing active military service, partially because of an accident of birth, a time spanning from the Vietnam War, where I and my immediate generation and the one immediately preceding mine, were excepted by age or gender. While decendent from a family whose military tradition has waned since the American Civil War, the few family members and friends I have known who have indeed fought for American forces on foreign soil such as Iraq and Afghanistan have survived with honor. I am very proud of these men regardless of whether I appove or disappove of certain foreign policy choices of any administration. I feel inadequate to express my own gratitude to these living heroes and to those who did not make it back to their families intact, but I must. War is a wicked endeavor. But war often requires war to extinguish itself, just fire is often turned back with more fire.

To this end, I must repost the following essay by Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch:

Today is Memorial Day, and while Hugh grills the Jihad Watch burgers I thought I'd note that one of the reasons why the popular culture does not honor our fighting forces today or in general is that the politically correct mindset assumes that we have moved beyond all that. Conflicts don't ever need to be solved with wars, you see. All we need to do is understand each other a little better, show the opposition that we are really good fellows after all, win over a few hearts and minds, teach the children not to hate, and voila, all will be well, and all manner of thing will be well.

Unfortunately, in the real world, sometimes one may know someone else quite well, and see that he is a good fellow, and despite all the hand-holding and Kumbaya singing, still want to kill or subjugate for reasons of one's own, that don't proceed from the Kumbaya-singer's actions at all.

This is a point that all too many in Washington, at the highest levels, stubbornly refuse to grasp. It is axiomatic in the State Department, and in Europe, and at the UN, that all conflicts can be solved through negotiated concessions. This is so much a part of the air they all breathe that it would be unthinkable even to question it. No one would even think to ask, "What if we implement state-of-the-art hearts-and-minds initiatives, and conform to all their foreign policy and cultural demands, and they still hate us?" This cannot be. The non-Western man is just a reactor, not an actor. He has no imperatives of his own that might set him against us. He is, ultimately, at our mercy, and it is up to us and us alone to pacify him.

The unconscious paternalism of this is ironic, coming as it does from the most besotted of relativist multiculturalists, but in any case, the fact of Memorial Day, and the reality of those who died in this nation's conflicts, shows it all to be false. Sometimes there are disputes between peoples that can't be smoothed over by any amount of making nice. And then, if a nation does not have within it those who will fight and will die to defend it, it will perish.

Today those who believe we have moved beyond wars, beyond fighting, rule the day. Unfortunately, we face a foe who believes war and fighting is his religious duty. He will not be pacified. Our fight is not just military, although it has a military dimension, and a huge adjustment in our current foreign entanglements is needed to defend ourselves most effectively from this scourge. It is a matter of will. Of remembering that there is in Judeo-Christian civilization, and in all civilizations that are threatened by the jihadist imperative of Islamic supremacism, something worth fighting and dying for. Remembering that we are only here to fight this battle today because others fought and died throughout history for our nations, our people, and the principles for which we stand. Let us not just honor them today, but, each in our way, seek to emulate them.

Taking Islam Seriously

Brigitte Gabriel and Andrew Bostom

BLUE IN THE FACE already, we have stated this before, but it bears repeating until we all get it. Muslim groups from around the globe keep telling the West that we need to respect them and that the West today is arrogant and over-confident, and just not taking their Islamic threat as seriously as we should. And in the most tragic sense I can muster, I cannot emphasize more that I actually agree with them on this point.

When the Russian Revolution broke out in 1917, as much as the West hated Communism, in a sense, we actually respected them. We respected the power of their ideas. We recognised that Communism was a potent and powerful alternative value system, and recognised that we would have to destroy or contain it; hence the 1921 intervention by the Allied Powers and their (ultimately fruitless) attempt to crush the Red Army and assist the White Russians.

However, when observed at face value it seems that we do not respect the Islamic challenge. To me, this failure speaks volumes about the patronizing ethnocentricism of many people in the West today on both the Left and the Right. Subconsciously, these people of good intentions are assuming that the West will always triumph over all of its enemies, and thus consider the Islamic challenge hardly worth the bother. This is especially sinister when it is the military that thinks this way.

Make no mistake: this enemy is playing for keeps, worthy to be taken seriously. Their value system is seriously cruel, seriously tyrannous, and seriously despicable, but also very powerful and serious. We must oppose Islam, to be sure, but we must also respect its power. Islam is a worthy opponent, just as were those American patriots who hid behind trees and bushes, in gulleys and in dark of night to defeat the British at the height of their colonial powers, and it is condescending and arrogant for us not to fight this Islamic menace with all means at our disposal. Brigitte Gabriel and Andrew Bostom (pictured above) have both staked their careers on bring this information to the American people, and I thank them in helping bring the situation to clarity for me this past year or so since I began my own invesigations.

It is not those who oppose Islam who are the arrogant Westerners—no ma'am, for we have seen the ideological power of Islam, and know that it is a beast not to taken lightly. We are off the plantation, Little Red Riding Hood, it's time to wake up and address what's at the door...

You, Me, The Infidel Revolution

Jamie Glazov
Jamie Glazov
A HEARTY THANKS GOES OUT TO Brigette Gabriel who sent me this from the always astute Jamie Glazov of Frontpage Interview's guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI). CSPI's goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced a series on its focus. Mr. Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he acts as the agent for a group of scholars who are the authors.

FP: Mr. Warner, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

In our last interview, you did a powerful job in crystallizing the mortal danger that Political Islam poses to all non-Islamic societies. I think that interview set the stage for a new mandatory discussion: What should we do to protect ourselves from the threat? Yes, we need to understand Political Islam. But once we understand it, what do we do about it? Or is there anything we can really do?

Mr. Warner, let's begin with a general question. What has marked our resistance so far?

Warner: Our resistance so far has been the first stage: to know the enemy and to develop a strategy. We are now coming to the end of it.

Since 9/11 we have had intellectual warriors who have studied Political Islam, built websites, blogged and written books. We now know the entire scope of Islamic doctrine and the biggest elements of a repressed and denied history of the dhimmitude, and annihilation of cultures. To repeat, we now know the doctrine and history of Political Islam at a strategic level. We now know the enemy and this is a mark of our success.

FP: Just for the sake of our readers, define "dhimmi" please.

Warner: A dhimmi is a second class citizen of an Islamic state. They can remain Christian or Jew, but pay a special tax and have very few legal rights. They are forbidden to study the Koran. Hence, today a dhimmi who defers to Political Islam is ignorant of the doctrine of Islam and never challenges it. Dhimmitude is the state of mind of a dhimmi. We are all in debt to Bat Yeor for her research and books on the dhimmi.

FP: Crystallize for us who the enemy is.

Warner: Our enemy is the civilization of dualism. The ultimate nature of Islamic civilization is duality. Dualistic Islamic ethics and politics propose one behavior for Muslims and another behavior for the unbelievers (kafirs). Islam has declared that the civilization of dualism must annihilate that civilization which is based upon a unitary view of humanity-ours. It is logically impossible for a civilization based upon a unitary view of humanity to co-exist with a civilization based upon duality.

History confirms that becoming Islamic means that every aspect of the targeted civilization must cease to exist. And it works 100% of the time. There is no such thing as a culture that is only partially Islamic. The evidence is exquisitely clear.

So for a people who have been raised with an ignorance of Political Islam we have made incredible strides. Remember we had only apologies from those who should have been our first line of defense-our artists, intellectuals, media and the educational system. In a sense we have started at less than zero.

We should all stop, take a deep breath, look at what we have done and congratulate ourselves for completing the first stage: Know the Enemy. Then we need take another deep breath and get back to work: Strategy.

FP: So what should our strategy be?

Warner: Our strategy must be the salvation of our precious civilization. We must save our very selves. All of this cannot be accomplished without the Mind of War. There is a psychology of war that puts everything in a different perspective. We are rich, fat, dumb and happy living in the land that everyone wants to emigrate to. It is easy to turn on the Super Bowl, plan the bar mitzvah, work for a promotion and just let Political Islam have its way. The Mind of War sees that all of what we have is an illusion, that the cancer has started to metastasize. Until we develop the Mind of War, we are doomed. We must have that emergency reserve that war brings out.

Without this state of mind, we will lose all we have. The great civilization of Coptic Egypt of the Pharaohs that lasted 5000 years is gone, a corpse buried beneath Political Islam. Liberal democracy is only 200 years old. Political Islam is 1400 years old and exploding in power. Without the Mind of War, our civilization will become extinct under the impact of the civilization of duality.

FP: This strategy would seem difficult for us to attain because we appear to be very afraid to make comments about Political Islam in our own society, no?

Warner: It is our dhimmitude. It's bizarre. We are afraid of Political Islam and its followers. They are not remotely afraid of us. Why is this? We are in a psychotic state of fear and shame caused by a past of 1400 years of dhimmitude and slavery. This psychosis is the state of the molested mind. The horror of Islamic politics produces a denial that the deaths, conquests, slavery, rape, humiliation, degradation, suffering and civilizational destruction ever happened. The molested mind denies the history and doctrine of Political Islam. That is the mind of dhimmitude.

Our civilization must acknowledge our status. We are still dhimmis. It has been 1400 years of servitude, slavery, dhimmitude, ignorance and a repressed and denied history. When we understand our history we will see exactly how repressed and in denial we are. The first mark of the dhimmi is ignorance of Political Islam.

We must acknowledge our suffering. We must decide that 270,000,000 of our ancestors did not die in vain. We must gain insight into why we know so little. There is a very deep reason in our collective psyche why we choose to remain ignorant. We are afraid to admit our dhimmitude and slavery to Political Islam. A million Europeans were captured and sold into Islamic slavery. If the history of slavery were completely told, whites and blacks could see each other in a new light.

In the past, this shame, ignorance and fear could be ignored. But now Political Islam is here and has us by the throat. Our future as a civilization depends upon realizing how close to annihilation we are. Only a revolution can save us. We must have a revolt of the dhimmis, a Dhimmi Revolution. After 1400, years it is time we faced our shame and fear with the Mind of War.

This common suffering must be acknowledged and told. The history and stories must be told within our groups and shared with the other groups. Once we know about the Tears of Jihad, we will be strong and courageous. Once we remember the suffering of dhimmitude, we can stop being afraid, have the Mind of War and be heroes in the war to save our civilization.

Luckily the cure for dhimmitude is very simple. Once you know the history and doctrine of Political Islam, you cease being a dhimmi. Knowledge is the key and the only key to freedom from shame and fear. We shall know the truth and the truth will make us free. Our future depends upon our facing the past.

FP: You refer to 270 million deaths at the hands of Political Islam. Can you shed light on that figure?

Warner: The figure of 270 million is a rough estimate of the death of non-Muslims by the political act of jihad. It is calculated as such:

Thomas Sowell estimates that eleven million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and fourteen million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached the plantation, five others died by being killed in the raid or died on the forced march from illness and privation. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have the collateral death of about 120 million people. Muslims ran all the wholesale slave trade in Africa. Death toll: 120 million Africans

The number of Christians martyred by Islam is nine million. A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another fifty million died in wars by jihad. So to account for the one million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have: 60 million Christians

Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of eighty million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. The country of India today is only half the size of ancient India, due to jihad. Death toll: 80 million Hindus

Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route,and in India. The total is roughly ten million. Death toll: 10 million Buddhists

The jihad in Arabia was 100 percent effective but the numbers were in the thousands, not millions. After that the Jews submitted and became the dhimmis (servants and second class citizens) of Islam and did not have geographic political power.

This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad.

FP: Thank you. Sounds like a holocaust to me—a holocaust that was never taught to me in school or in university. So let's get back to our enemy: Political and Ethical Dualism. But we also have another enemy in terms of the people in our own society who apologize for it, right?

Warner: Yes, Political and Ethical Dualism is the far enemy, the near enemy is its apologists. In the end we will win or lose depending on how we deal with our dhimmi leaders in the media, schools and politics. Once we win the Dhimmi Revolution, winning the war with Political Islam is possible. If we don't win the revolution, our civilization will become extinct.

And what is the nature of the near enemy, the apologists? They want to maintain ignorance about Mohammed and Political Islam's history. Our experience is that when an apologist learns the truth about the doctrine and history of Political Islam, the danger is revealed.

There are basically two kinds of knowledge about Political Islam—knowledge of doctrine and knowledge of history. The full cure requires both. There is a 1400 year-old history of slavery and dhimmitude, so when you are curing ignorance with the history of Political Islam, there is a lot of history to choose from.

The political doctrine is much simpler. You can hold the doctrine in one hand—Koran, Sira and Hadith. Although a detailed knowledge about the Koran is useful, the most powerful element of the doctrine is Mohammed. Mohammed is Islam, so we must educate others about Mohammed, Islam's first politician, and its sacred political model.

FP: Fair enough, so what do we do, write more books?

Warner: We cannot win by writing another book, putting up another website or blog. Those things are individual in nature. We must move to the political phase. This means boots on the ground, people meeting in the same room, people talking to people. Politics. Groups. Meetings. Real people. Not just computer screens, or books. We must have action against the near enemy in our town. This is the battleground we will live or die on as a civilization.

It is impossible for individuals to win this revolution. Our first step must be to build community. So how do we build community? Of course, there are many ways to go about this. Some people can build within a present group. An example would be forming groups within a church or synagogue. Conventions must be held to form strategies.

We must also build community out of strangers. We must develop ways to meet others in our city. Larger communities must be formed from the small communities. We need ways for revolutionaries to learn what is going on with other groups to learn from each other's failures and successes.

A community should be formed out of those who have similar functions with the revolution. As an example, writers should get to know each other personally. Website owners have common problems and need to build community to deal with those common problems. People who write letters to the editor should get to know each other. We have to start working in groups. Join the pack.

FP: It would be very hard to start working in groups because our society is so divided, no?

Warner: Yes, and we must face a fact about getting together in groups. Our civilization may have the Golden Rule as its ideal moral law, but let's face it, we all fall short. We are endlessly divided with gripes, feuds and sore history. Hindus don't trust the Christians; blacks have a grudge with whites, and so on. And there are further divisions within each group.

We must face the political reality today. We either learn to work together on a common political ground or become extinct like Buddhism in Afghanistan. We must have ambassadors between groups. If Protestant Christians get together to deal with Political Islam, they should invite Hindus and Orthodox Christians. Their mutual history of suffering at the hands of Political Islam can be a starting point of a political community. On this basis we can talk and work together.

FP: The task ahead is to confront a lot of ignorance, especially in the media.

Warner: Absolutely, every columnist, politician, preacher, priest, rabbi, artist, writer, professor, or correspondent who makes a statement, comment or conclusion about Political Islam and does not make reference to the death of 270,000,000 victims of jihad, dhimmitude, or the doctrine of Political Islam must be challenged about their ignorance. Every leader in every area must learn the history of dhimmitude, slavery and the life of Mohammed.

The Dhimmi Revolution must get in all leaders' faces and confront them with their ignorance. This has to be without blame. Our leaders are not stupid, but ignorant. And the reason they are ignorant is they grew up in a culture where their teachers were dhimmis, who submitted to Political Islam by remaining ignorant about our history of dhimmitude. These leaders bear the burden of 1400 years of ignorance. Each of them share the psychosis of the molested mind. A mind in denial and fear caused by the violence of dualistic Political Islam.

Our Dhimmi Revolution is about confronting ignorance. We must first educate ourselves and then our political opponents, the near enemy-the apologists.

FP: Can you talk a little bit more about strategy?

Warner: Our strategy must deal with three of the near enemy-theuniversities, the media and politicians. From a strategic standpoint they are similar. They are organizations that have a small number of middle managers and leaders. This means having a small target list to pressure, lobby and persuade. For instance, a letter to the editor at a paper should not only go to the opinion page editor but up and down the chain of command. Good information should permeate the organization.

Somewhere out there must be some software people who can help us form community and spread information to the right people. As an example: this type of software could be applied to an ongoing letters-to-the-editor group. Fellow writers could communicate with each other, build community and attract new writers, select targets and have organizational email lists of the managers and leaders of the targeted organization. Some of this is being done today, but it must become organized, coordinated and ongoing.

We must utilize the web for community and strategy. But we must also be in rooms with other people we recognize, be with groups who visit politicians and others we want to influence and persuade.

FP: So how do we teach ourselves?

Warner: Some of us must start teaching those who want to know. CSPI has seen that there are many who don't want to read about the doctrine or history of Political Islam. It is too frightening and depressing. But put them in a group and they love to hear about it and ask questions. There is a change in the air. Some churches are having lectures and classes. The few must teach the many. To take part in the Dhimmi Revolution, you first take the antidote to dhimmitude, knowledge.

FP: How about the universities? The truth about Political Islam is almost not even permitted there.

Warner: The universities are our number one target. Their influence is felt by the politicians and the media. At present the near enemies own the schools. The state universities offer some special opportunities. They are supposed to be in the business of knowledge and they are supported by our tax dollars. We must make demands that the schools teach the history of jihad, dhimmitude, the Tears of Jihad. We can use civil rights lawsuits that claim discrimination and bigotry in the history departments.

Imagine the uproar we can make by insisting that the full history of slavery be taught. We want all of this history taught, not just the West African limited edition. We have to learn the history of white slavery, Hindu slavery, African slavery taught at the taxpayers' schools. We must know how dualistic Islam enslaved all races, religions and cultures. Arabic has more words for slaves that any other language. We demand the end of ignorance about the history of Political Islam. It is our civil right and we must use every means possible to have the right to know our history of dhimmitude, death and slavery, particularly in a state-funded school.

Universities are a constant forum for Political Islam. We need to have groups visit the campuses and ask good questions. We must harangue, harass, pressure, and make visits to professors, department heads, deans and pressure for full debate. The department of humanities, women's studies, history, political science, African and Middle Eastern studies departments are all target rich environments. We must always push to have the full and true doctrine of Political Islam taught.

FP: What's after the universities?

Warner: Our politicians. We must use the politicians to pressure the state universities. And that means that we must pressure the politicians. Their ignorance will be our point of attack. We must constantly confront our leaders and show them the ways they speak and act like dhimmis. We must show how there is a cure for dhimmitude: the knowledge of the doctrine and history of Political Islam.

We must repeatedly bring up the lack of actual knowledge. We must demand that all politicians know what Sharia law is and what it means. We must demand that politicians learn the political doctrine of Islam. We must demand they know what a dhimmi is. The duality of Islamic ethics must be put before them. Every politician should know the numbers killed in jihad.

Mohammed's politics and character must be known. Once you know who Mohammed was, the next Muslim who bends your ear will be heard in a different tone. Every school board member, council member, legislator, and other elected officials must be visited and asked questions about his/her knowledge of Islam's first politician, Mohammed.

FP: Overall, there has to be a massive tactic of exposing ignorance.

Warner: Yes, and shaming ignorance. Any scholar of Political Islam will tell you that it is easy to learn about Political Islam and Mohammed. What is the most amazing thing about Political Islam is the grotesque ignorance by people who are otherwise well versed. We must shame our professors, thinkers, politicians, and media types with the ignorance.

We must also shame our artists and intellectuals regarding their lack of knowledge about Mohammed's persecution of artists and intellectuals. Each time Political Islam kills and threatens another artist or intellectual, we must attack the denial of our effete thinkers. We must show the artists and intellectuals their ignorance and dhimmitude and invite them to join the Dhimmi Revolution and produce art to free their civilization from dhimmitude.

In the end, the near enemy must understand that any statement, comment or opinion they make about Political Islam that does not mention violent jihad and Mohammed s based upon ignorance. The constant question that every follower of Political Islam, or apologist for Political Islam, must answer is, "What did Mohammed do or Allah say?" It is the only question and we must learn to answer it as well.

When we shame the apologists for their ignorance it must be without rancor. But they must face that their opinions about Political Islam show an ignorance about our dhimmi history, and the deaths of 270,000,000 victims of jihad.

FP: So some final words?

Warner: To win the Dhimmi Revolution, we must work as a community. We have to address the frequent hope seen on the web when someone proposes a great legal solution to our problem about Political Islam. But no matter what your idea is or how good it is, it doesn't matter. CSPI is aware of one Congressman who has the slightest awareness about Political Islam. Before we can implement any political ideas we must have a political base. At this time, we don't need great solutions, we need to prepare a trained political base before we can do anything. We must take the Dhimmi Revolution to every Congressman and every Senator and every state legislator before we can get a single bill passed.

The Dhimmi Revolution is to build community, know the far enemy, confront the near enemy.

In summary, we have finished the first stage of our struggle to defend our civilization-know the enemy and its dualistic politics and dualistic ethics. The age of individuals is coming to an end and we must enter the phase of grassroots politics. We are too weak and divided to confront Political Islam, the far enemy. We must first confront the near enemy, our apologists for Political Islam. The doctrine and history of Political Islam is the weapon we can use to reveal our near enemy's ignorance about Mohammed. We must turn to building community so that we can work in groups to do the necessary political work. We must harness existing groups and create special interest groups designed to carry the Dhimmi Revolution to the universities, politicians, artists, intellectuals and the media.

FP: Bill Warner, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

Warner: Thank you Jamie.