Our Deadliest Enemy: Time is Running Out

Prof. Paul Eidelberg, President with the Israel-America Renaissance Institute

Contents

Part I. Introduction

Part II. Identifying the Enemy

Part III. A Former Muslim Shows How to Combat the Enemy

Part IV. An Insider’s View of ‘Moderate’ Muslims

Part V. Beyond Multicultural Relativism

Part VI. The Theological Basis of Today’s Crisis

Part VII. Islamophobia: Facts and Fictions

Part VIII. Islamic Bellicosity and Blood Lust

Part IX. Blood Lust (cont’d)

Part X. Iran and Necrophelia

Part XI. Islamic Imperialism

Part XII. Muslim Jew-Hatred

Part XIII. Islam and Nazism­­­

 

Part I. Introduction–

That Muslims have exceeded the depravity of Nazis by using their own children as human bombs tends to hinder objective and comprehensive analysis of Islam. This essay will provide a thoroughly documented, interdisciplinary, transnational, and multiracial study of Islam. Any reader whose intellect has not succumbed to prejudice or political correctness, and is capable of thinking for himself, will see what eminent scholars throughout the ages and across the globe have seen, namely, that Islam is a form of paganism that sanctifies evil–and this is does in the name of a monotheistic theology that claims to be the “final revelation.”^[1]

We all see that Islam is a cauldron of murderous hatred. We are no longer shocked by the fact that Muslims hate not only non-Muslims but other Muslims. It is common knowledge that Sunnis and Shiites hate each other, that both abhor Sufi Muslims as well as other Islamic sects. True, something comparable to this may also be said of certain Christian sects especially before the Reformation–and we dare not forget that Christians slaughtered Jews down through the centuries. But as Dr. Michael Ledeen has documented, and as will presently be seen, Islam is unique in that its love of death or necrophilia remains an ineluctable aspect of its theology.

Moreover, despite the murderous hatred Muslim sectarians display toward each other, we need to understand the character of their supreme role-model and prophet, Mohammad, who purportedly taught his followers the Quran, Islam’s Holy Scripture. We need to transcend vacuous tolerance, and we dare not yield to the timidity that poses as “moderation” in discussing Islam. Moderation in defense of freedom is not a virtue. Accordingly:

• We deplore the fact that Islam’s cult of hatred and love of death is downplayed by scholars who are reluctant or incapable of revealing the theological underpinning of this hatred magnified by necrophilia. Indeed, scholars in the West are understandably reluctant to say anything pejorative of a creed that poses as a worldwide monotheistic religion. We can no longer afford this reticence. We are confronted by an enemy with global ambitions. Weapons of mass destruction are now available to this enemy, and Muslim leaders have expressed with zeal a readiness to use these instruments of death and destruction. Our survival requires us to expose and confront the ugly truths about this enemy.
• We need to understand why Muslims, whether they are Arabs in Saudi Arabia or Persians in Iran, hate Americans and Jews as well as each other. This hatred is horrifying. It animates an uncertain but strategically significant percentage of the estimated 1.5 billion Muslims on planet earth!
• Although Islam may also be called an “ideology,” we should not succumb to the timidity of scholars who obscure the crucial fact that this so-called ideology is driven by a theologically magnified hatred, especially of Judeo-Christian civilization. We deem it awesome and not a little stupefying that so vast number people who worship Allah can harbor so much murderous hatred, a number more than ten times the population of Nazi Germany–surely enough to commit genocide? This horrendous phenomenon is a terrible reflection on what civilized people naively call a monotheistic religion. To clarify this theological mystery in a forthright and compelling manner, we must not be deterred by the unpleasant consequences that may arise from a candid and critical study of Islam.
• Despite the murderous hatred Muslim sects display toward each other, we need to understand the character of their supreme role-model and prophet, Mohammad, the author of their holy scripture, the Quran. We need to transcend vacuous tolerance of the liberal democratic mind, and we dare not yield to the timidity that poses as “moderation” in discussing Islam.

Is it any wonder that serious people in the West see in Islam an irremediable threat? On the other hand, is it any wonder that few Western scholars and statesmen display the candor and courage to discuss the religious or theological nature of this threat? What irony! The threat is from an enemy that defines us as the enemy, while we sincerely profess to be truly benevolent and peace loving! Our benevolence is obvious. We are even reluctant to call our enemy an “enemy,” let alone our sworn and implacable enemy, lest we insinuate that this enemy is evil. is Islam is We hesitate to use any pejorative language to describe our enemy–not only because we fear it will antagonize him and prompt him to more violence, but also because we live in a morally neutral or non-judgmental age that avoids calling an openly declared enemy “evil”–even one who gleefully screams “Death to America” and vows to “wipe Israel off the map.”! Some observers say that the liberal and social democracies of the West are suffering from a mental disorder.[2] Let me try to explain.

Whether conscious of it or not, people in the West have been subtly and profoundly influenced by the moral and cultural relativism that permeates all levels of education in the free world. For more than a hundred years we have been indoctrinated by the ethical neutrality of the social sciences and humanities. Our institutions of higher education have taught countless opinion makers and policy makers that there are no rational or objective standards regarding right and wrong, good and bad. This cynicism inhibits us from calling any moral or religious doctrine pernicious. Cynics would have us believe that describing any doctrine as evil is equivalent to calling someone’s preference for a particular flavor of ice cream evil. It’s all a matter of personal taste–nothing to get upset about, let alone resort to violence.

And so it is with religion. Your religious preference has no more validity than your preference for vanilla or chocolate ice cream. The conflicts people wage over this or that religion or ideology is irrational. If everyone understood that there are no objective moral or religious truths, hence, that no way of life is intrinsically superior to any other, war would be a thing of the past. Tolerance and peace would rein on earth.

This naive relativism ignores a crucial fact: some men like to lord it over others, regardless of whether they are believers, agnostics, or atheists. But what is more: given two antagonists–one a moral relativist, the other a moral absolutist, then, all other things being equal, the absolutist is more likely to persevere and win in any protracted conflict. It is doubtful that the Allied Powers in the Second World War would have conquered Nazi Germany had they not believed that Nazism is evil, and that freedom or liberal democracy is worth fighting and dying for.

This is precisely the psychological state of affairs affecting the conflict between Islam and the United States, Islam and Israel, Islam and the West, as well as Islam and the rest all that is not–and this conflict began ages before 9/11. Muslims believe in the absolute righteousness of their cause, and conversely that Liberal Democracy is unadulterated evil. This moral disparity or asymmetry between Islam and the West is precisely why the more powerful United States, whose decision makers have been influenced and emasculated by multicultural relativism, is retreating from the Middle East, just as it retreated from Communist-led North Vietnam, a tenth-rate military power. But mark this well: as in the 1960s, American colleges and universities are not only steeped in multicultural relativism, as I have shown in an essay published in the Congressional Record,[3] but we now behold academics professing outright anti-Americanism!

What does this portend? The bellicosity of the enemy is transparent. He harbors a 1,400 year-old military heritage. His mentality is permeated and disciplined by this heritage. His Arab-Islamic mind abhors infidels, and he is not reluctant to use weapons of mass murder. It should be obvious that the growing power of Iran in the oil-rich Persian Gulf and the expansion of the Muslim Brotherhood on the one hand, and America’s retreat from the Middle East and European pacifism on the other, indicate that our enemy is winning what can only be called a World War. What is most remarkable, however, is that America has yet to define the enemy!

It would be easy to do this if Islam was an atheistic and geographically-defined regime like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia. But our enemy poses as a worldwide monotheistic religion, and here is where Islam departs from other cultures that exalt war. Islam, which should be credited for having eliminated idolatry in Asia and Africa, is a religion whose prophet forms an integral part of the faith. As I have elsewhere written, it is not sufficient to believe in the Scriptures of such prophets or Messengers but in the Messengers themselves.

This is another reason why Muslims have wielded the sword to spread the faith and to send “infidels” to eternal rest. Compare the militant religion of the Hindus, another numerous people. The Hindus worship Shiva, the god of destruction. Their sacred text, the Bhagavid Gita, exalts war. Rulers, who necessarily come from the warrior caste, are obliged to discipline their subjects to wage aggressive wars against neighboring states whenever feasible. As one writer says, “Peace emerges from India’s literature and history either as stagnation, or as a time for plotting military action, or as a ruse of war meant to induce somnolence and moral disarmament in enemy ranks.”[4] Add Buddhism. Although Buddhism arose in protest against the Hindu caste system, it did not alter the prevailing exaltation of war and peace. In Japan, Zen Buddhism combined with Shintoism to establish the martial tradition (innocuously portrayed in the theatrical West). Throughout Southeast Asia warfare has been accepted as the natural expression of the religious or political order. Much the same may be said of all of the regions of sub-Saharan Africa.[5] But it is in China that the science of war achieved perfection. The martial classics of China exhort rulers to make their people “delight in war” and to expand the frontiers of the state. “It is a misfortune for a prosperous country not to be at war; for in peacetime it will breed … the cultivation of goodness, filial piety and respect for elders, detraction of war and shame at taking part in it.”^[6]

But we were talking of Islam, which, unlike those just mentioned, is deemed a monotheistic religion. And even though many of us are not religious, we tend to believe that, notwithstanding the wars Christian monotheists engaged in the past, the participants in these wars were actually violating their sacred creeds or scriptures. In other words, we want to believe that religion–at least monotheism–is basically benevolent and peace-loving; and that even though history manifests bloody examples to the contrary,  we incline to the idea that these wars may be attributed–stated simply–to other (1) intellectual causes, (2) moral causes, or (3) systemic causes, meaning, the international system of sovereign states. The first may involve the miscalculations of statesmen regarding the interests of their respective countries. The second may involve the lust for power and dominion. The third may involve, as indicated, the nation-state system itself, which tends to intensify and magnify international conflict. Unfortunately, these considerations are only tangential to the core issues of this essay. We need to understand the irremediable nature of Islam and why the bellicosity of this 1,400-year ideology constitutes a lethal threat to the moral and theological foundations of the Judeo-Christian heritage, the heart of Western Civilization.

Part II. A Transnational Study of Islam

This installment will review what ancient and modern scholars of diverse nations have said or written about Islam. We shall now show, inter alia, (1) that the reigning Ash’arite school of Islam, which rejected the rationalist tradition of classical Greek philosophy, has been engaged in a life-and-death struggle with Western Civilization since the ninth century; (2) that Muhammad, the founder of Islam, did not purge this creed from the polytheism and paganism of pre-Islamic days; (3) that Islam, cloaked in the veneer of monotheism, is not consistent with the discoverer of intellectual and moral monotheism, the Patriarch Abraham; (4) that Islam, which now holds sway over some 1.5 billion Muslims, is utterly opposed to Judeo-Christian civilization; (5) that Islam is fundamentally irrational, which is why it was rejected by one of the greatest Muslim philosophers al-Farabi, a disciple of Plato and Aristotle, who, to avoid punishment or death, was a Muslim in dress only; (6) that countless scholars in the West have sacrificed their intellects by obscuring the true nature of Islam and its existential threat to Western Civilization, indeed, to civilization per se; and (7) that the Western notion of Muslim ‘moderates’ is an escape from reality; and (8) that Islam cannot undergo a reformation without denying it as a revelation of God.

This last point touches the quintessence of Islam and must be understood to fathom why it is our deadliest and most intractable enemy. It is a quintessential principle of Islamic theology that the Qur’an was directly dictated by God, word for word in Arabic, through the Angel Gabriel to Mohammed. It is God’s literal uncreated word, without any influence on it from Mohammed as its transmitter. The Qur’an has existed coeternally with God in heaven exactly as it exists today. It is not historically, culturally, or linguistically contingent on the circumstances of its revelation.[7] It follows from this foundational and quintessential principle that Islam cannot be reformed without rejecting its deity, hence its prophet and theology.

Islam is generally regarded as one of the three great monotheistic religions. According to Catholic theologian George P. Weigel, however, “To speak of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as the “three Abrahamic faiths,” the “three religions of the Book,” or the three monotheisms, obscures rather than illuminates. These familiar tropes ought to be retired.”^[8]

Some readers, who have not examined the profound scholarship of Dr. Weigel, may attribute his above pronouncement to the bias of a Catholic theologian. But there are many scholars and scholar-statesmen who have not only expressed doubts about the authenticity of Islamic monotheism, but who also deny that Islam can rightly be called a civilization! Indeed, such doubts about Islam can be found even among many former Muslims! But here caution is necessary.

To obtain an objective and transnational as well as insiders understanding of Islam, let us consider (1) how world-renowned scholar-statesmen evaluated Islam before 1900, that is, before the emotional impact and horrors of today’s jihadism, and (2) why many learned Muslims abhor Islam and regard it as cruel and tyrannical. We begin with the world renowned nineteenth-century thinker Alexis de Tocqueville, author of the classic Democracy in America:

I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad.   So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.[9]

Compare a statement appearing in the 1899 work of Winston Churchill The River War: Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome^[10]

Perhaps some may attribute the assessments of de Tocqueville and Churchill to imperialistic bias or even to Western racism. Indeed, since criticism of Islam exposes one to the racist canard, let us ponder the views and experience of learned Arabs and Muslims who rejected Islam and its founder. This done, we shall then probe further into the nature of Islam and why Islam is notorious for its bellicose reputation–which is not to suggest that Islam has a monopoly on ethnic violence. On the other hand, we are not going to resort to the apologetics or “political correctness” of scholars and politicians who obscure the true nature Islam by various adjectives such as “fundamentalist” or “political” or “radical” or “extremist” or some other abbreviated version of this ideology. We are going to set forth an abundance of literary and philosophical as well as empirical and even biographical evidence by which the reader can form his own judgment about Islam and why it is our deadliest enemy. To avoid the canard of racism or of ethnocentrism, we begin with the experience and views of Muslims and Arabs who risk their lives telling the truth about our deadliest and intractable enemy.

1. Ayaan Hirsi Ali became a Member of Parliament in the Netherlands. She helped produce Submission, a film with director Theo Van Gogh which criticized Islam’s ill treatment of women. For producing this film Van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim who pinned a note to Van Gogh’s chest threatening Hirsi Ali. She made her way to the United States, and has since written two books critical of Islam: Infidel and Nomad: From Islam to America, and A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations.

2. Wafa Sultan born and raised in Syria, Dr. Wafa Sultan trained as a psychiatrist. On February 21, 2006, she took part in an Al Jazeera discussion program, arguing with the hosts about Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations theory. A six-minute composite video of her response was widely circulated on blogs and through email. In the video she criticized Muslims for treating non-Muslims differently, and for not recognizing the accomplishments of Jews and other non-Muslims. The video was the most-discussed video of all time with over 260,000 comments on YouTube.

3. Ibn Warraq was born in India to Muslim parents who migrated to Pakistan after the partitioning of British Indian Empire. Warraq founded the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society. He is a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry, focusing on Quranic criticism. Warraq is the author of seven books, including Why I Am Not a Muslim and Leaving Islam. He has spoken at the United Nations “Victims of Jihad” conference organized by the International Humanist and Ethical Union alongside speakers such as Bat Ye’or, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Simon Deng (of whom, more below).

4. Francis Bok born in Sudan, Francis Piol Bol Bok was a slave for ten years but is now an abolitionist and author living in the United States. On May 15, 1986, Bok was captured and enslaved at age seven during an Islamic militia raid on the village of Nymlal. Bok lived in bondage for ten years before escaped imprisonment in Kurdufan, followed by a journey to the United States by way of Cairo, Egypt. Bok’s autobiography, Escape from Slavery, chronicles his life from his early youth and his years in Islam’s captivity, to his work in the United States as an abolitionist.

5. Nonie Darwish, now an American, is the daughter of an Egyptian general whose family was part of President Nasser’s inner circle. Darwish founded Former Muslims United with Ibn Warraq, an organization dedicated, in part, to helping Muslims reject the inherent intolerance, violence, and supremacism in Islam. Darwish She is the author of two books critical of Islam, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law, and Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror. She is an outspoken critic of Sharia law.

6. Brigitte Gabriel is a Christian Arab born in Lebanon. She watched her country become an Islamic state. She made her way to America only to find, to her horror, that her newly adopted country has been invaded by the Muslim Brotherhood. Deciding to warn her fellow Americans about the dire results from appeasing Islam, she founded ACT! For America, a grassroots organization dedicated to educating the public about Islam. Gabriel is the author of two books, They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It, and Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America.

7. Mark Gabriel born in Egypt, Mark Gabriel grew up immersed in Islamic culture. He attended al-Azhar, Islam’s most prestigious university. After graduating, he was offered a position as a lecturer. During his research, which involved travel to Eastern and Western countries, Gabriel became more distant from Islam, finding its history, “from its commencement to date, to be filled with violence and bloodshed without any worthwhile ideology or sense of decency. I asked myself ‘What religion would condone such destruction of human life?’ Based on that, I began to see that the Muslim people and their leaders were perpetrators of violence.” On hearing that Gabriel had “forsaken Islamic teachings,” the al-Azhar authorities expelled him from the university and asked for him to be released from the post of Imam in the mosque of Amas Ebn Malek in Giza city. The Egyptian secret police seized Gabriel and placed him in a cell without food and water for three days, after which he was tortured and interrogated for four days before being transferred to Calipha prison in Cairo and released without charge a week later. He escaped Egypt and has since written several books, including, Islam and Terrorism.

8. Walid Shoebat, an Arab immigrant to the United States, is a former PLO terrorist! He was born in Bethlehem. In 1993 he converted to Christianity after studying the Jewish Bible. After the September 11 attacks in 2001, Shoebat began to criticize Islam publicly. He has appeared on mainstream media around the world and has been an expert witness on a number of documentaries on Islam. Shoebat argues that parallels exist between radical Islam and Nazism: “Secular dogma like Nazism is less dangerous than Islamofascism that we see today … because Islamofascism has a religious twist to it; it says ‘God the Almighty ordered you to do this’ … It is trying to grow itself in fifty-five Muslim states. So potentially, you could have a success rate of several Nazi Germanys, if these people get their way.”

9. Walid Phares, a Lebanese Christian, earned degrees in law, political science and sociology. He immigrated to the United States in 1990 and has testified before committees of the U.S. State, Justice, Defense, and Homeland Security Departments, the United States Congress, the European Parliament, and the United Nations Security Council. His writings expose Islam’s political doctrine and seek solutions to the problems present in the West. His books include, The Confrontation: Winning the War Against Future Jihad, and The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy.

10. Magdi Allam was born in Egypt and raised by Muslim parents. He became a journalist and outspoken critic of Islam. In 2005, he published an article calling for a ban on building mosques in Italy. He accused mosques of fostering hate and claimed Italy is suffering from “mosque-mania.” Allam charges that Islam is inseparable from extremism. Criticizing Islam itself, rather than Islamic extremism, Allam argued: “I asked myself how it was possible that those who, like me, sincerely and boldly called for a ‘moderate Islam,’ assuming the responsibility of exposing themselves in the first person in denouncing Islamic extremism and terrorism, ended up being sentenced to death in the name of Islam on the basis of the Quran. I was forced to see that … beyond … Islamic extremism and terrorism that has appeared on a global level, the root of evil is inherent in an Islam.”

11. Khaled Abu Toameh was born in the “West Bank” in 1963 to an Israeli Arab parents. He received his BA in English Literature from the Hebrew University and lives in Jerusalem. Toameh was formerly a senior reporter for The Jerusalem Report, and a correspondent for Al-Fajr, which he describes as a mouthpiece for the PLO. He has produced several documentaries on the “Palestinians” for the BBC, Australian, Danish and Swedish TV, including ones that exposed the connection between Arafat and payments to the armed wing of Fatah, as well as the financial corruption within the Palestinian Authority. One of Toameh’s more famous articles is, “Where Are the Voices of ‘Moderate’ Muslims?

12. Tawfik Hamid was born in Egypt and became a member of al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya. Hamid started to preach in mosques to promote a message of peace, which made him a target of Islamic militants who threatened his life. Hamid migrated to the West where he has lectured at UCLA, Stanford University, University of Miami and Georgetown University against Islamic fundamentalism. In a 2009 Wall Street Journal Article, Hamid challenged Islam to prove it’s a religion of peace, and called on Islamic scholars and clerics, “to produce a Shariah book that will be accepted in the Islamic world and that teaches that Jews are not pigs and monkeys, that declaring war to spread Islam is unacceptable, and that killing apostates is a crime.” Hamid has written opinion pieces for The Wall Street Journal, including “Islam Needs To Prove It’s A Religion Of Peace,” “How to End Islamophobia,” and “The Trouble with Islam.”

13. Simon Deng was born in South Sudan. One day the Muslims Arabs came and Deng was captured and enslaved. He eventually escaped and immigrated to the United States. Deng, who lectures across the country, warns of the horrors of unchecked Islam and Sharia. His most important revelations appear in a speech he delivered at the New York DurbanWatch Conference of September 22, 2011:

In South Sudan, my homeland, about 4 million innocent men, women and children were slaughtered from 1955 to 2005. Seven million were ethnically cleansed and they became the largest refugee group since World War II… Everybody at the UN is concerned about the so-called Palestinian refugees. The UN dedicated a separate agency, UNWRA, to provide for them. While the UNWRA treats them with special privilege, my people, ethnically cleansed, murdered and enslaved …

The Islamist regime in Khartoum declared jihad and legitimized taking slaves as war booty. Arab militias were sent to destroy Southern villages and were encouraged to take African women and children as slaves. We believe that up to 200,000 were kidnapped, brought to the North and sold into slavery. The UN knew about this brutal enslavement from the early days of the conflict. Human Right Watch issued extensive reports about the issue. These reports gathered dust on UN shelves. As a former slave and a victim of the worst sort of racism, allow me to explain why I think calling Israel a racist state is absolutely absurd and immoral.

I have been to Israel five times visiting the Sudanese refugees. Let me tell you how they ended up there. These are Sudanese who fled Arab racism, hoping to find shelter in Egypt. They were wrong. In 2005, the refugees camped outside the offices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in Cairo looking for mercy. Instead, the United “do-nothing” Nations closed their doors and left the helpless women and children at the mercy of the ruthless Egyptian security forces who brutally slaughtered at least twenty six of them…..

Arab racism is the same, whether it is in Khartoum or in Cairo. So [the Sudanese] continued looking for a shelter and they found it in Israel….When I asked the refugees about the treatment they receive in Israel, their response was absolutely the opposite of what the UN alleges. They were welcomed and treated like human beings. Compared to the situation in Egypt, they described their lives in Israel as “heaven.” No-one called them “abid”–an Arabic word for slaves often used in Sudan, Egypt and other Arab nations….

Part III. Former Muslim Abul Kasem Shows How to Combat the Enemy

[Note from the present author: While research this essay, I discovered, in the January 7, 2008 issue of FrontPageMagazine.com (FP), a most courageous and candid interview of a former Muslim, Dr. Abul Kasem. Born and educated in Bangladesh, Kasem had authored hundreds of articles and several books exposing Islam. For example, he contributed to Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out, and Beyond Jihad: Critical Views From Inside Islam. Kasem was interviewed FP’s Managing Editor, Dr. Jamie Glazer, a Ph.D.in history who coauthored (with David Horowitz) The Hate America Left (in which Horowitz reveals the “unholy alliance” between the Left, steeped in atheism, and Islam). Without further ado, let’s go directly to FP’s opening query of Dr. Kesem.]

FP: Tell us a bit about your spiritual and intellectual journey.

Kasem: Born in Bangladesh, I attended secular schools and underwent strict religious discipline …. When I was nine, a typical Mullah taught me the Islamic rituals … and how to recite the Qur’an correctly. He also taught us that Muslims are the only inheritors of the earth, that we must never mix with the non-Muslims, we must hate them, humiliate them verbally, and if possible, physically.

In high school, I discovered a world beyond Islam. I met a few Hindus and two Christians. I found them extremely polite, peace-loving, sincere, and affable. Unfortunately, communal riots broke out in India and Bangladesh (then known as East Pakistan). One of my Hindu friends was brutally murdered by Islamist fanatics. This was a life-changing experience, as I witnessed the mutilated dead bodies of my friend, his parents, and siblings. When I discussed this with a few Muslim gentlemen (moderate Muslims [of whom, more later]) they told me that the Hindus deserved to be killed; there should not be any Hindus in our Muslim land. Further, I learned from them that in Islam, there is a great reward for killing the non-Muslims.

In 1971 the Islamic Army of Pakistan let loose a genocide, killing around 3 million Bengalis, and raping around 250,000 Bengali women. Local Islamists helped their barbarity in every way. They justified their actions by [the] Qur’an, Hadith [reports of what Mohammad said and did], and Sharia laws. After independence, I talked about it with a local Imam. He took out a Qur’an, read a few verses, and told me the genocide and mass-rape was a hundred percent Islamic-sanctioned. He said the Bengali Muslims have deviated widely from the real Islam, and as such, they deserve Allah’s punishment, and the Pakistani army did just that to purify us. Shocked, I decided to read the theological sources of Islam.

What I discovered horrified me. It was beyond my comprehension that a religion, touted to be the religion of peace, could contain such blood-curdling, terrifying, barbaric verses, cultures, and laws to entice the entire Islamic community to slaughter the infidels and the not-so-good Muslims. Access to authentic books and Internet gave me more freedom to learn and express [my views].

FP: So share with us a bit of what you discovered in Islam.

Kasem: Ok, here is a bit of my education [concerning Islam and its historical sources]:

• Prophet [Muhammad] allowed rape of war-captives.– Sahih Bukhari, 3.46.718.
• Muhammad ordered a Muslim woman to breastfeed a man. She protested but ultimately had to do so. – ibn Majah, 3.1943.
• Muhammad ordered the murder of Asma Marwan, a Jewish poetess when she was suckling her babies. – ibn Ishaq, p. 676, ibn sa’d, vol. ii, p.30-31.
• Muhammad conducted ethnic cleansing of Banu Quaynuqa Jews from Medina. – Tabari, vol.vii, p. 85.
• Muhammad hired a professional killer to assassinate Ka’b b. al-Ashraf, a poet of Medina. – Sahih Bukhari, 5.59.369.
• The Messenger of Allah said, “Whoever of the Jews falls into your hands, kill him.” Muhayyish b. Masud killed his friend and business-partner Ibn Sunaynah – Tabari, vol.vii, p. 97-98.
• Muhammad’s death squad murdered Abu Rafi, a critic of Muhammad in Medina. – Tabari, vol.vii, p.103, Sahih Bukhari, 5.59.371.
• Muhammad did ethnic cleansing of B. Nadir Jews from Medina. – Tabari, vol. vii, p.158-159, Heykal, ch. B. Nadir, Sahih Bukhari, 3.39.519.
• Muhammad beheaded between 600-900 Jews of B. Qurayzah who did not fight Muslims but were attacked, and they surrendered unconditionally – Tabari, vol.viii, ch. B. Qurayzah; Heykal, ch. the Campaign of Khandaq and B. Qurayzah, ibn Ishaq, ch. B. Qurayzah.
• Allah favours Arab racism … of Quraysh stock and of white complexion (ibn Sa’d, vol.1, p. 95-96, Sahih Muslim, 20.4483.
• Muhammad traded slaves for beautiful, young, and sexy women, such as Saffiya. – Sunaan Abu Dawud, 2.2987, 2991.
• Muhammad’s hired killer assassinated Al-Yusayr b. Rizam and a party of Khaybar Jews at al-Qarqara. – ibn Ishaq, p.665-666.
• A woman must keep her sexual organs ready for service at all times (Ihya Uloom Ed-Din of Ghazali, Tr. Dr. Ahmad Zidan, vol. i, p.235)
• Allah made Muhammad wealthy through conquests (raid, plunder, war). – Sahih Bukhari, 3.37.495. These are only few of the thousands of documents that sized and shaped my journey through Islam.

FP: In many cases, when I [Glazer] have a conversation with various Muslims, the following happens: the issue of Islam is brought up and I am immediately informed that I don’t know what I am talking about – and this occurs before I have even said anything. Then, when I ask about the violent verses that mandate war against unbelievers (i.e. Suras 9:5, 9:29 etc.) I am informed that this is not even in the Qur’an. I am then informed that Muhammad did not even as much as touch the hair on a person’s head. I respond that Muhammad was a military man. I am then told that this is absolutely not true. I then relate the words of the verses I am referring to and am then told I have a false translation. I describe the translation, that it is a Qur’an translated by a renowned and respected Muslim that all Muslims trust (i.e. Abdullah Yusuf Ali), and the Muslim I am speaking with just keeps shaking his head.

Mr. Kasem, this happens to me a lot. What exactly is going on here? Are many Muslims playing some kind of game with the unbelievers they speak with or do the majority of them actually have no idea what is in the Qur’an and are also, for some bizarre reason or another, indifferent to what it actually says? …

Kasem: I guess these discussions must have been with some cunning Islamists living in infidel territory, perhaps in the USA, Canada or UK. It is no surprise that the same Islamists, if in an Islamic Paradise, will make a complete U-turn and [say] that verses 9:5 and 9:29 are alive and kicking well.

This tactic of denial, translation problem, context, misconception and so on, is an age-old method used by the conniving Islamists to save skin. In Islamic language this is known as taqiyya (telling lies) and kitman (adopting deception). When Muslims are weak, verses 3:28 and 16:106-107 of the Qur’an (that is Allah) tell Muslims to adopt these techniques to save themselves from the infidels. They are even allowed to deny their Islamic faith and told to criticize Islam, if need be. Muhammad had adopted this policy to assassinate his critics.

No wonder, we note the modern Islamists adopt the same technique in confounding the West.

Let us briefly review verse 3:8 [of the Qur’an], the foundation of Islamic taqiyya and kitman. This verse tells the Muslims not to take unbelievers as friends; caution is necessary to befriend the unbelievers. On the exegesis of this verse, ibn Kathir, the most eminent Tafsir [exegete] of the Qur’an, writes: Do not befriend the deniers (i.e., the non-Muslims), even if they are among the closest relatives. In case of danger, Allah allows Muslims to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. The taqiyya is allowed until the Day of Resurrection. Allah has reserved unremitting torment for those who give their support to His enemies, and those who have enmity with His friends.

In simple language, ibn Kathir says it is all right to tell lies and adopt deception for the sake of Islam. Therefore, it is no surprise that Muhammad’s ardent supporters are simply repeating the Islamic history. The cunning, sophisticated, and sly Islamists will go to any extent to secure the confidence of the gullible Western infidels. This is how Islam is advanced in an enemy territory–where Islamists do not have the military might to kill the infidels en-masse. Just note how their tactics will change when they are strong in number, [say] about ten percent of [the] population (this is what is happening in France) and they have a recruitment of Islamist terrorists, having set up terror cells. I hope you now understand why the Islamists living in the West are so adept in telling lies and adopting deception.

In this connection it might be appropriate to examine the true meanings of verses 9:5 and 9:29. According to most Qur’an scholars this verse (9:5) is known as the verse of the sword (ayat saif); this verse alone cancels about 124 verses that espouse mercy, tolerance, and forgiveness to the pagans. Let us understand verse 9:29, in the language of Islam. This verse says: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, or in the last Day, or in the halal food. Unbelieving people of the Book (Jews and Christians) pay jizya tax with submission (humiliation); if they do not pay jizya tax or convert to Islam, kill them. According to various Islamic sources this verse abrogates [lenient verses] 2:109, 60:8-9.

Lastly, I must tell the simple-minded infidels who have a dialogue with these clever Islamists that these people are simply taking advantage of the ignorance of the gullible non-Muslims, who have been brain-washed by the PC [politically correct] media that Islam is [a religion of] peace–similar to other religions. The vast majority of Muslims (especially [of] non-Arab background) have very little idea about the severity and barbarism of the Qur’an. As such, these Islamists take full advantage of this ignorance and try to convert killing verses into kissing verses, and hateful verses into loving ones. This is why it is important to read and understand the Qur’an, Hadith, Sunna, and Sharia. These fundamental sources of Islam are the most potent weapons to confront the Islamists living in the West.

FP: While I am sure [says Glazer, that] some of these Muslims are thinking they are deceiving me, I have definitely met many of the Muslims you just described who truly do not know about the severity and barbarism of the Qur’an. In any case … why do you think the efforts at an Islamic Reformation are suffering such huge obstacles? The effort of moderate Muslims to make any real ground in developing a counter-jihad strategy appears to be failing, no? How come? Or are my assumptions misplaced?

Kasem: The answer is very simple. Islam cannot be reformed. Muhammad himself has banned any reformation to Islam. Reforming Islam is not a new idea. From time to time Islamist scholars have attempted to reform Islam. They have failed. You might have heard of the group called Mutazilites. Their sincere attempt to reform Islam in or around the ninth and tenth century had failed miserably. Many such Mutazilites faced severe Islamic punishment for bringing innovation (bidah) in Islam. Introducing innovation in Islam is a serious crime, according to [Asherite philosopher] al-Ghazali. Whoever, brings in such a reform is subject to Islamic punitive measure, which is death.

Today, Islam is fossilized in the seventh century Bedouin Arab customs upon which Muhammad had founded Islam.

Part IV. Abul Kasem: An Insider’s View of ‘Moderate’ Muslims’(cont’d)

To have moderate Muslims [says Kasem], there must be moderate Islam….For the existence of moderate Muslims, there must be a ‘moderate’ Qur’an, since the life force of Islam is the Qur’an. If the Qur’an cannot be ‘moderated’ (i.e., a moderate Qur’an) then how is it possible to have a moderate Islam, and consequently moderate Muslims? What we perceive as the so-called moderate Muslims may be classified into three groups:

• The first group, the vast majority, probably around 90% of global Muslims, are Muslims by name only. They have no idea about the contents of the [core scriptures of the] Qur’an, Hadith, and Sharia. It is a misnomer to term them as moderate Muslims. Strictly speaking, if we go by the Qur’an, they are not Muslims at all. According to Sharia law, they might even be sentenced to death for not adhering strictly to Islam.
• The second group, I would call them “pretend” Muslims. They are probably around 5% of all Muslims. They occasionally go to mosques on Fridays and … and sometimes pray and fast at home. These Muslims are also hypocrites. When the dark side of Islam is illustrated to them, they are disturbed, become defensive and justify the evil nature of Islam by alluding to historical contexts. This is simply nonsense, as the Qur’anic verses are valid for eternity and must be acted upon by Muslims at all times. These so-called moderate Muslims discover in Islam what Islam is not meant to be. They resort to twisted meanings of those numerous brutal verses, and attempt to transform them into loving and kissing ones. How can we call this group of Muslims moderate?
• The third group (another 4% of Muslims) is the Islamists who have no guts to blow themselves up but resort to intellectual Jihad and academic and philosophical terrorism. They are the spiritual foundations of the real Islamist terrorists. They regularly visit mosques, organize Islamic seminars, and send e-mails to gullible non-believers and design Islamic websites. Many of them are Imams in mosques. They are diehard ritualists–never missing a single prayer, always patronizing halal eateries (while living in infidel lands), soliciting funds and Zakat (Islamic alms) money to finance Jihad in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir and so on. They exhort other not-so-good Muslims to hate the non-Muslims. So, you see, there is no such true thing as moderate Muslims.

These fake ‘moderate’ Muslims are similar to the spectators in a stadium. They cheer (in silence) the jihadists who are combating the infidels in the arena. Therefore, it is foolhardy to depend upon these ‘moderate’ Muslims to reform and regain Islam from the hands of the extremists. ‘Moderate’ Muslims and the jihadists (extremists) are just the two faces of the same coin. They are the same–one group is in silent actions, the other group is in violent actions.

Therefore, I regret to say that your use of the ‘moderate’ Muslims to develop a counter-jihad approach is truly misplaced. The current policies of the Western governments to appease the ‘moderate’ Muslims, extolling Islam as a religion of ‘peace,’ and hunting the jihadists to stop Islamist terrorism is just wrong. This policy is bound to fail.

So long as the Muslims are energized, motivated, and instructed according to the core scriptures of Islam, there will be no end to Islamist terrorism. Please remember that terrorism is just a tactic employed by the jihadists to advance their agenda, which is to conquer the globe and enforce Islamic laws. You might laugh or pooh-pooh such a chutzpah of the Islamists. But bear in mind that Islamists have unshakeable belief in the ultimate victory of Islam through terror. They have already conquered the Muslim world and now want to conquer the West. It is because Muhammad himself has declared that Islam will be victorious through terror and plunder (see Bukhari Hadis, 1.7.331).

FP: Can you expand a bit on the theological roots of Islamist terrorism?

Kasem: I have already mentioned that Islamist terrorism is the direct application of the Qur’an, Sunna, Hadith, and Sharia. Let me demonstrate from the Qur’an that Islamist terrorism is rooted in the theology of Islam.

Islam is at perpetual war with the non-Islamic world (the Qur’an 4:76, 60:4). Those who read the Qur’an and Hadiths (Muhammad’s deeds and traditions) and want to emulate them cannot but be terrorists. They must hate the non-Muslims, humiliate them, distrust them, deceive them at every opportunity, and kill them when the situation is appropriate. This is the stipulation of the central doctrine of Islam. A Muslim who does not emulate this cardinal premise of Islam is not a Muslim at all. The Qur’an says that Allah has purchased the lives of Muslims (9:111-112) in exchange for booty and Paradise so that they are obliged to sacrifice their lives or become martyrs (like suicide bombers) when they go on a killing mission (5:94). This is a business contract with Allah. Allah strictly binds all Muslims with this contract. That is why the Qur’an stands solidly behind the Islamist terrorists. They are simply fulfilling their contract with Allah. These terrorists are not an aberration of Islam. They are, in reality, Islam as it was during Muhammad’s time, and as it should be, and not what the not-so-good Muslims think Islam to be–a religion of peace and unbound love for humanity.

Killing, assassination, terrorism and bloodshed are the DNA codes of Islam. Even if the whole world converts to Islam, the true Muslims will continue perpetrating bloodshed. If they don’t get the blood of infidels, they kill one another. This is the legacy of 1,400 years of Islamic rule. The best example is Pakistan, (or Iraq) where 97% of the population is Muslim, yet there is bloodshed of Muslims by Muslims. Look at the recent assassination of Bhutto. Previous to that, a Pakistani suicide bomber killed at least fifty Muslim (worshippers) while they were praying in a mosque on the occasion of [the festivity of] Eid-ul-Azha. This is the stark proof that violence and killing are inseparable from Islam.

Terrified, many non-Muslims often ask: what do the Islamist terrorists want? They want to convert the entire world into an Islamic Paradise. There is no surprise in this. During his days, Muhammad had asked the Muslims to terrorize the world until Islam rules supreme (Quran 3:85, 5:3, 5:33). Qur’an exhorts the Muslims to keep fighting (with swords, not spiritually) until they perfect the world through Islamic purification and domination (Qur’an 9:5, 9:29, and 9:33). In reality, it means imposing on the non-Muslims (or the non-Arabs) the Arabic and Bedouin culture (also known as Islam) by force, murder and terrorism. Even Caliph Umar had admitted that Bedouins are the raw materials of Islam (reference: History of the Arabs by Phillip K. Hitti).

FP: How do we most effectively combat this threat?

Kasem: Islamic terrorism is not going to end soon–not at least before a few more 9/11s, Madrids, Balis, [London] 7/7s take place. Its demise will depend upon how resolute the world becomes in the coming days. As long as there are PC politicians, and as long as the world depends upon the so-called moderate Muslims to extinguish this menace, nothing will happen, rest assured on this.

The world must not follow this path of least resistance. This method will only ensure the defeat in the hands of the clever and cunning Islamist terrorists and their supporters, the so-called moderate Muslims. America, UK, Australia, the forefront nations in the fight against terror, have limited resources. They are spending billions of dollars to face this challenge. This cannot go on forever. These nations will soon get tired, their money exhausted, their population will soon rebel and refuse to send their children to join the army and be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan for a cause that has very little to do with their lives. Soon, there will be loud voices in these nations to pull out. The Islamists are just waiting for this moment. Their war on the unbelievers cost them next to nothing.

Mind you, life is so cheap in Islam. With one suicide bomber they kill hundreds and thousands of people. Do your math and you will realize why the Islamists are capable of carrying out their act for decades, if not for centuries. We must recognize that the real enemy is not the terrorists. Rather, it is Islam. As long as the world does not internalize and comprehend this truth, and as long as wrong PC policies are pursued, this war will continue and the defeat of the non-believers is guaranteed.

Just think if we could convince the suicide bombers that there are no 72 virgins waiting in Paradise to provide them with unlimited sexual orgy. Just think if we could convince the Islamists that Islam is barbaric, false, and imperialistic.

The bottom line is: The focus of war should be shifted from Iraq or Afghanistan to Islam. No doubt, it is necessary to fight this war militarily, but it should also be fought doctrinally. It is an ideological war. We need to expose Islam to the world. This will force the so-called vast majority of the not-so-good Muslims to discard, at least the violent part of it. They would remain contented with the ritual part of Islam, like prayer, fasting etc. These rituals do not harm others. When this happens, the Jihadists will find it extremely difficult to recruit new suicide bombers and Islamist killers. That is how Islamist terrorism should be fought. It will take time.

FP [Jamie Glazer]: Quite a task we have in front of us. Abul Kasem, thank you for joining us and thank you for your courage to tell the truth.

Kasem: Thank you.

Part V. Beyond Multicultural Relativism: Serge Trifkovic,

The Sword of the ProphetIntroduction: Having surveyed what well-educated and experienced ex-Muslims say about Islam–Muslim men and women who have lived and suffered under various Islamic regimes–the reader must be all the more dismayed by the university-bred doctrine of multicultural relativism that permeates all levels of education in liberal democratic America and in social democratic Europe.

As indicated at the outset of our survey of Islam, it is this relativism that obscures the horrendous evil–the genocide and politicide–committed in the name of Muhammad and his deity. Relativism has emasculated the West. It corrupts American foreign policy. It prompts the politicians of the secular democratic state, American as well as European, to appease terrorists and tyrannies, especially those that adorn themselves in a ferocious religion. That the civilization inspired by the Prophets of Israel, the dialogues of Plato, the works of Aristotle, the Sermon on the Mount, the tragedies of Shakespeare–a civilization, moreover, that produced scientists like Newton and Einstein, statesmen like Washington and Churchill–that this civilization should genuflect to despots who worship Muhammad and his Jihad-loving deity–what a sacrifice of the intellect; what a betrayal of justice and humanity; a mockery of human greatness!

No doubt the present writer will be accused of “Islamophobia” and paranoia, by academics who dismiss Islamic maledictions such as “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” as mere rhetoric and who therefore purvey the academic doctrine of “conflict resolution,” which is rooted in moral and cultural relativism. The professors of that doctrine are either dull-witted, delusional, or suffer from a pathological denial of evil. According to the Center for the Study of Political Islam, and as reported in FrontPageMagazine, February 21, 2007, Muslims have slaughtered approximately 270 million people since the ascendancy of Muhammad! Serge Trifkovic takes this data seriously.

In The Sword of the Prophet (2002), Dr. Trifkovic, of Serbian descent, received his Ph.D. at the University of Southampton, UK and pursued postdoctoral research at the Hoover Institute at Stanford. Unsurprisingly, Trifkovic has been savaged by critics who question his understanding of Islam as well as the reliability of his sources. It’s nothing but “Islamophobia,” a malady they also attribute to American-born scholars like Robert Spencer, author of The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion (2006). Those critics manifest the title of Allan Bloom’s celebrated book The Closing of the American Mind (1987). Their obscurantism prompted me to preface Dr. Trifkovic with the FrontPageMagazine interview of Abul Kasem, whose portrayal of Islam very much substantiates what Trifkovic says of Islam in The Sword of the Prophet. [11]

Trifkovic portrays Muhammad as a fanatical warlord who used or invented Islamic ideas in the process of conquering Mecca and Medina. Citing the Quran and the Hadiths–Trifkovic exposes Islam’s prophet as cruel, ignorant, and lascivious. Thus, after slaughtering Arab tribesmen and looting their camels, the prophet and his followers kidnapped their women and staged an orgy of rape.  One Hadith explains:

We desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, but at the same time we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl [coitus interruptus]. But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger … and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born [a view consistent with Islam’s doctrine of predestination (P.E.)].[12]

To the men of one Jewish tribe, Muhammad offered the choice of conversion to Islam or death. Upon their refusal, up to 900 were decapitated in front of their women and children. “Truly the judgment of Allah was pronounced on high,” was Muhammad’s comment. The women were subsequently raped. Trifkovic comments: “That Muhammad’s actions and words, as immortalized in the Quran and recorded in the Traditions, are frankly shocking by the standards of our time–and punishable by its laws, that range from war crimes and murder to rape and child molestation–almost goes without saying.”[13]

Trifkovic is aware of the cultural and historical relativism that would prompt Western intellectuals to say, “We must not extend the judgmental yardstick of our own culture to the members of other cultures who have lived in other eras.” He counters this relativism by pointing out that “even in the context of seventh century Arabia, Muhammad had to resort to divine revelations as a means of suppressing the prevalent moral code of his own milieu.”[14] Muhammad is thus revealed as a deeply flawed man by the standards of his own society, as well as those of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and even by the law of which he claimed to be the divinely appointed medium and custodian. Trifkovic sums up his assessment of Muhammad by quoting the eminent orientalist Sir William Muir (1819-1905): “the sword of Muhammad and the Quran are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty, and truth which the world has yet known.”[15]

Part VI. The Theological Basis of Today’s Crisis

Having examined the hostile assessments bitter experiences of former Muslims concerning Islam, let us return to George Weigel. Dr. Weigel points out that St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest Catholic theologian, refused to concede a parallelism between Judaism and Christianity, on the one hand, and Islam, on the other. It would have been sufficient to point out that Islam rejects the Judeo-Christian concept of man’s creation in the image of God. In his Summa Contra Gentiles, St. Thomas expresses the conviction that Muhammad distorted the Bible and taught great falsehoods. Islamic theology includes teachings that “render the notion of ‘three Abrahamitic faiths’ ultimately misleading … particularly if this trope is understood in the popular imagination as a matter of three equivalent legs propping up a single monotheistic stool.”[16]

Nothing better illustrates the conflict between Islam and the West than Muhammad’s reputation in the Islamic world as the paradigm of virtue. Thomas does not see him through rose-colored glasses:

He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasures … His teachings also contained precepts that were in conformity with [such] promises … the truths that he taught were mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity… he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity.[17]

Now let us compare the views of a Jewess, the Egyptian-born scholar, a Bat Yo’er. In her monumental work, Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide (2002), Bat Ye’or avoids discussing the relationship between Muhammad’s character and Islamic theology.[18] Instead, she documents Islam’s fourteen-century record of plunder, rape, and genocide.

One would hardly know of such barbarism reading the doyen of Islamic scholars, Bernard Lewis. Judging from his book What Went Wrong? (2002), nothing is intrinsically wrong with the religion that enthralls 1.5 billion Muslims.[19]  This British-born Jewish scholar, polite as well as erudite, is not known as an apologist of Islam. However, that Islam is indeed a violent cult follows from the character of Muhammad, Islam’s role model. From the research of Dr. Serge Trifkovic we learn that Muhammad who concocted bestowed prophetic sanction for his own perversions.

For very recent evidence of Islamic violence, let us consult Middle East and Islam specialist, Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Born and raised in the U.S. by Egyptian parents who were born and raised in the Middle East, Ibrahim has equal fluency in English and Arabic and an equal understanding of the Western and Middle Eastern mindsets. In a recent report, “Muslim Persecution of Christians,” which first appeared in http://www.meforum.org/3222/muslim-persecution-of-christians-march-2012, Ibrahim writes:

The war on Christianity and its adherents rages on in the Muslim world. In March alone, Saudi Arabia’s highest Islamic law authority decreed that churches in the region must be destroyed; jihadis in Nigeria said they “are going to put into action new efforts to strike fear into the Christians of the power of Islam by kidnapping their women”; American teachers in the Middle East were murdered for talking about Christianity; churches were banned or bombed, and nuns terrorized by knife-wielding Muslim mobs. Christians continue to be attacked, arrested, imprisoned, and killed for allegedly “blaspheming” Islam’s prophet Muhammad; former Muslims continue to be attacked, arrested, imprisoned, and killed for converting to Christianity.

To understand why all this persecution is virtually unknown in the West, consider the mainstream media’s well-documented biases: also in March alone, the New York Times ran a virulently anti-Catholic ad, but refused to publish a near identical ad directed at Islam; the BBC admitted it will mock Jesus but never Muhammad; and U.S. sitcoms were exposed for bashing Christianity, but never Islam.

Is it any wonder, then, that this same mainstream media ignores or at best whitewashes the nonstop persecution of Christians under Islam? Exposing such ugly truths would undermine their narrative of Islam as the “religion of peace.”

From the preceding multifaceted and multiracial as well as multinational survey, it should be transparent that the Muslim claim that Allah is the God of the Bible, or that Islam arose from the religion of the Hebrew prophets and Christian apostles, is absurd. In fact, this fantastic claim is contradicted by overwhelming archeological evidence. Islam is little more than a revival of the ancient Moon-god cult. Indeed, while it may be impolite and provocative to say, as others have said, that Islam is paganism and polytheism in “monotheistic wrapping paper,” various studies show that Islam has taken the symbols, the rites, the ceremonies, and even the name of its god from the ancient pagan religion of the Moon-god.[20]

Part VII. Islamophobia: Facts and Fictions

Lest the reader draw erroneous conclusions from our admittedly provocative exposé, a word of caution is in order. Islam is not a race, and Muslims–be they Sunni, Shiite, or Sufi–do not constitute a race, no more than do Jews. There are Caucasian and Oriental and Black Muslims, just as there are Caucasian and Oriental and Black Jews. The Danish writer and historian Lars Hedegaard, who was wrongly accused of racism, rightly said that since Islam is not a race, criticism of Islam cannot be a manifestation of racism or of “Islamophobia.” Besides, fear of Islam, far from being a phobia, is not at all irrational given the murderous attitude of Islam toward non-Muslims, as the reader already knows from the diverse sources cited above. There is also the mysterious character of Islam, as Lars Hedegaard points out:

Some say that it is a religion, others that [it] is an all-encompassing ideology that contains a religion; still others emphasize its cultural norms, its culturally transmitted customs and practices. Some even maintain that Islam is so multifaceted that it is impossible to describe it. But regardless of one’s approach, it must be clear that Islam is not a hereditary human attribute. If our Western freedom means anything at all, we must insist that every grown-up person is responsible for his or her beliefs, opinions, culture, habits and actions.[21]

Another cautionary note: In the sixteenth century, the Ash’arite school of Islam, inspired by the anti-Hellenist Persian philosopher al-Ghazālī (1058–1111 C.E.), eventually gained ascendancy over the Hellenist-oriented Mu’tazilite school of Islam. Note well, however, that the Ash’arites reject not only the primacy of reason, but also the Genesis conception of man’s creation in the image of God (Gen.1:26-27). This Ash’arite theology, which now dominates Islam (and so-called Islamists) regards the Judeo-Christian concept of Imago Dei as blasphemous! Hence, the reigning school of Islamic theology denies free will and the primacy of reason and thus stands in direct opposition to the concept of personal responsibility intrinsic to the Judeo-Christian ethos. This is not to suggest that the moribund Mu’tazilite school can be revived or that its revival would dissolve the militant imperialism and authoritarian doctrines of Islam’s prophet, Muhammad. which means that Islam is diametrically opposed to the nation-state pluralism and the value of personal freedom cherished in the West.

It must be emphasized that the conflict between Islam and the West should be understood as an intellectual as well as a moral conflict, rather than as a merely political or ethnocentric conflict. Although this conflict is the gravest issue of our time, it certainly has nothing to do with race or genetics, as we already know. The reader should bear in mind that at stake in this conflict is nothing less than the survival of Western civilization. But inasmuch as various Muslim leaders scream “Death to America” and have vowed to “wipe Israel off the map,” and further, since countless men, women, and children have already paid the supreme price in this conflict the world over, we disdain academic euphemisms, and, for the sake of moral clarity, truth, and justice, we shall use stark judgmental language to elucidate the nature of civilization’s deadliest enemy as attested to even by former Muslims.

Now let us examine the unique research of the eminent Arabist scholar Raphael Patai, whose 1976 classic, The Arab Mind, is not at all engagé. His research will convince any candid reader that the quest for genuine and abiding peace between Muslims and Arabs on the one hand, and Israel and the United States–hence Western Civilization–on the other, has no rational, no empirical, no psychological, no ideological, nor any theological foundation. Statements to the contrary by commentators–however respectable their titles or affiliations–are delusional or manifestations either of effete benevolence or of willful self-deception (if not of intellectual dishonesty), as the reader will see for himself. The essay shall We begin with the candid observations appearing in the 2002 post-9/11edition of Raphael Patai’s book.1976 classic The Arab Mind (revised in 2002). Our conclusions apply to literate people who are not ignorant of the 9/11 destruction of the New York World Trade Center and the gleeful response of Islamdom–the world of Islam–to the horrible deaths of almost 3,000 innocent men, women, and children resulting from that infamous and unprovoked attack on the United States. This attack, if understood in terms of what the Twin Towers represented, was an unprovoked attack on the cherished values of Western civilization, an attack that merited, in the opinion of some thoughtful Americans, the leveling of Mecca and Medina.

Accordingly, the present essay utterly rejects the mindless and mendacious character of academics who color Islam, or the theology of its Scriptures, as a “religion of peace.” This belief, which leads academics well as politicians and diplomats to conclude that peace between Islamdom and Judeo-Christian civilization is possible, has no rational or realistic foundation. Referring to the Arab inhabitants of Palestine before the Second World War, Middle East expert Phillip J. Baram writes: “[W]hat often struck observers was the extraordinary, often suicidal destructiveness, and not merely in terms of vivid oratory, expressed even during local intra-Arab quarrels: bloody vendettas for generations, uprooting of trees, burning of grain stocks, destroying of wells. Great envy, superstitions, talent for dissimulation mixed with ignorance and arrogance were the concomitants.”[22]

Even in an infidel-free world, Muslims would continue bloodying one another as they have since Islam’s inception. Hence, the present writer shall argue that current events across the globe, as well as the 1,400-year record of Arab-Islamic genocide and politicide documented by scholars and statesmen from diverse nations, and even by intellectually liberated Muslims and Arabs themselves, makes fools and liars of Arab-Islamic apologists. This conclusion will be confirmed even graphically as we proceed in this exposé–deliberately provocative to shock readers out of the timidity, obscurantism, and mendacity of so-called Islamic scholarship. However, to start with facts and ideas of urgent significance to the survival of civilization in general and of Israel in particular, I shall begin with the unabashedly worldly, uncomplicated, and germane research of Dr. Raphael Patai, The Arab Mind. (Pagination will appear in the text.)

Dr. Patai Writes:  The old pre-Islamic heritage of the lex talionis is still alive [in the world of Islam], and it works on the individual as well as on the collective plane [of Islam]. For the latter, there is no greater shame than defeat by an enemy, and especially an enemy such as Israel, the Jews, who ever since the days of Muhammad have been looked down upon by the Arabs as dhimmis, a people brought low and subjected … If it is Allah’s will that the Arabs be defeated by such an enemy, or any enemy, it is up to them to plan patiently for the revenge which alone can restore their honor, even if they have to wait for it for years or, if need be, decades. When the attainment of such s supreme value is the goal, the pressure to achieve it mounts until it is strong enough to overcome the threat-inaction pattern. Examples of such occurrences abound in past Arab history, and the determination to restore Arab honor by gaining a victory over Israel which culminated in the October War [of 1973] is but their last one [to say nothing of Israel’s American ally, presaged by Islam’s 9/11 attacks on the American mainland] (xxiii).

Patai’s understanding of the Arab mind is based primarily on historical studies that emphasize anthropology and social psychology. Accordingly, and like most commentators including the dean of Western students of Islam, Bernard Lewis, Patai ignores or avoids sustained analysis of the theological influences of Islam on the “Arab Mind.” This leads him to employ a liberal or morally neutral mode of thought to elucidate the mentality of countless Muslims who are anything but liberals, which does not mean that much cannot be learned about the Arab mind beginning with the otherwise sophisticated study of Raphael Patai.

Patai rightly emphasizes a most notorious aspect of the Arab mind, its bellicosity, and he traces this bellicosity to the Arab method of child-raising Arab males. He notes that “a boy is breast fed for two to three years; a girl for one or two” (p. 34). Demand breast feeding–instant gratification–is common for boys, such that a boy and his mother have an almost marsupial relationship. “A male infant who cries is picked up immediately. This comforting and soothing of the baby boy often takes the form of handling his genitals [in the belief it will ‘help him become a man amongst men’] ….This motherly caressing of the penis may go on at an age from which the boy retains distinct memories throughout this adult life….. [Indeed,] erotic pleasure is something that Arab male infants in general experience and that predisposes them to accept the stereotype of the woman as primarily a sexual object and a creature who cannot resist sexual temptation. The most frequently stated purpose of female circumcision (clitoridectomy) which is practiced in many parts of the Arab world, is to ‘calm down’ the women, that is, to diminish their libido” (p. 34). But this Islamic practice also induces in male children masculine dominance. (p. 52).

Patai offers the fascinating observation that the masculinity of Arab males is magnified by the extraordinary efforts Arab parents take to render Arab males eloquent in Arabic. For the Arab, “Eloquence is … an achievement akin to the attainment of masculinity” for it facilitates not only exaggeration but also (tawkid) or ego “assertion” (p. 52). Moreover, eloquence magnifies an Arab tendency, that of identifying what he wishes or imagines with reality, a tendency that conduces to exaggeration and prevarication.

Furthermore, eloquence provides Arabs with “a readiness to express superficial agreement and fleeting amiability which is meant to conceal the situation and hide the true feelings” of Arabs (p. 114). Conversely, Patai points out that “the Arab custom of trying to intimidate an adversary by verbal threats is such a prevalent feature of the Arab personality that it could not escape the notice of either foreign or native observers” (p. 63). The reader will readily discern that these characteristics of the Arab mind, which foster masculinity, thereby foster the desire to outdo and dominate others. In other words, the Arab exaltation of masculinity cannot but foster bellicosity and a lust for superiority.

Patai emphasizes that “conflict proneness is intrinsic to Arab-Islamic culture.” Indeed, “internal fighting is so abundantly attested in all parts of the Arab world that one must accept the truth of the general situation described. For it is a fact that the internal history of each Arab country consists in the main of struggles between two opposing parties on all successive levels of social organization…. Examples illustrating the fighting mentality without and between villages are so numerous that to cite them would soon become monotonous” (p. 232). “In between [conflicts], there were long series of meetings convened for the purpose of ironing out differences and formulating resolutions on issues of common interest to all Arab states, but ending in most cases with more disagreements than they started with” (p. 235).

Patai informs us that the former and domestically admired Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser went so far as to denounce the illiberal and contentious tendency of his own countrymen. “He had never heard,” he writes, “an Egyptian speak fairly about another Egyptian, nor seen an Egyptian who had opened his heart to pardon, forgiveness and love for his Egyptian brethren,” or who did not “devote his time to tearing down the views of another Egyptian” (p. 235). Amil Imani, the Iranian-American writer, who was born in a Muslim family, offers a personal example of the contentiousness to which Patai refers:

My relentless search [to understand Islam] took me to numerous sources, with all kinds of explanations. Some praised, Islam, specifically Shiite Islam, to high heaven and presented their evidence in support of the adulation, never mind the fact that even Shiite Islam is fractured into no less than one hundred different sects. I found the house of Muhammad fractured so extensively that there was no way any one of them could represent what Muhammad launched. The Sunnis, for instance, consider all Shiites as infidels and the Shiites label Sunnis as betrayer of Muhammad’s faith and his household.[23]

Patai concludes that this rivalry and resulting belligerency has been part of Arab personality since pre-Islamic days. At every level discord has always been present, either actually or potentially. At the slightest provocation, the fighting propensity has been part of the Arab personality since pre-Islamic times (p. 238). Once fighting has begun, “older psychological mechanisms come into play, making it virtually impossible for either side to stop fighting, unless totally and hopelessly defeated, or unless mediation can bring about a [not long-lasting] settlement of the dispute” (p.239). The obvious reason is this: “What reigns in Arab-Islamic culture is persistence in seeking revenge, a craze about honor, and a readiness to kill for that purpose” (p. 224); or, to put it more simply, conspicuous among these people is a relentless lust for superiority.

Viewed in this light, the Western notion of “conflict resolution” is utterly foreign to Arab culture. Islam’s bellicosity and overweening desire for superiority are nonetheless ignored by Western statesman, whose intellectual or political fixation on peace is futile and fatal if not infantile. Indeed, as the philosopher Lee Harris observes–and we shall discuss him later–given the ruthless bellicosity of Islam, the only rational response is an even greater ruthlessness, and this mandates–for peace-loving people–an ironic moral imperative, “kill for peace”!

As already indicated, Patai, like most Western scholars, does not focus attention on Islamic theology as the quintessential and magnifying cause of Arab bellicosity. Nor does he subject to critical analysis why Islamic theology is an intrinsic cause of Arab decadence. However, having raised the subject of theology, I must caution the reader that I am referring to the dominant Ash’arite school of Islam, not the Mu’tazilite school which was suppressed after the ninth century. The Mu’tazilite school, which was influenced by Greek philosophy, did not deny the primacy of God’s rationality and the significance of man’s free will. This subject has been brilliantly explored by Robert R. Reilly, The Closing of the Muslim Mind, to which the present writer is greatly indebted, notwithstanding my starker but no less accurate language.

Since Patai does not provide meticulous analysis of Islam’s regnant Ash’arite theology as crucial to in-depth understanding of the Arab mind, he does not attribute Arab bellicosity and decadence to the Ash’arite suppression of the Mu’tazilites after the ninth century. Rather, he traces this decadence of Arab culture to the beginning of the sixteenth century (p. 262), long after the ascendancy of Ash’arite Islam–the Islam that reigns to this day. This may explain Patai’s dismal view of the Arab world, a view based not precisely on Islamic theology but imprecisely on what he calls the “low state of Islam in every field of human endeavor” (p. 257). He thus portrays an Arab mentality and culture steeped in “the age-old Arab virtues of manliness, aggressiveness, bravery, heroism, courage, and vengefulness, which have been extolled by [Arab] poets for more than thirteen centuries and survive in the Arab consciousness, predisposing him to conflict even though he [fondly] believes in Arab unity and brotherhood” (p. 239). Patai therefore avoids questioning the rationality of Islamic theology, a subject raised in Reilly’s The Closing of the Muslim Mind. I dare say, moreover, that Patai’s casual or typically Western diminution of the theological factor, and, conversely, Reilly’s accentuation of this factor, is what divides superficial from profound understanding of the conflict between Islam and the West! To put this another way: Whereas Muslims are notorious for their overweening pride, Jews regard humility (anava) as the highest virtue.[24]

Going beyond Patai’s otherwise informative analysis of the Arab mind, I will now present what may be termed a Hebraic understanding of Arab-Islamic bellicosity. Although I exclude any genetic origin of this bellicosity, I nonetheless wonder whether this bellicosity has been biologically magnified by Islamic culture or behavior, and without lending any credence to the discredited geneticism of Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko. I categorically reject any form of racism. Indeed, I want to emphasize the fact that seven centuries ago the outstanding Arab historian and sociologist Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) dared write that Arabs are a savage people, and that “savagery” describes their nature or inherent character (21). If so, this means that the horror of bloodshed and therefore the sanctity of human life are foreign to Islam. This will be graphically illustrated below to clearly illustrate the folly and futility of Israel’s century-long efforts to make peace with the descendants of Ishmael, especially those animated by Islamic theology.

Part VIII. Islamic Bellicosity and Blood Lust

It will be generally admitted Before continuing, and to avoid misunderstanding, the reader will admit that aggressive and therefore bellicose behavior is subject to cultural influence. In the case of Islam, the paramount and all-pervasive influence on Islamic culture is the Quran, and what Muhammad is reported to have said and done as reported in the Hadith literature–all of which constitutes the foundation of Islamic law, the Sharia. No less than Winston Churchill described the Quran as the Mein Kampf of war, a conclusion supported (as cited below) by statistical analysis of the bellicosity of Quranic language.

It goes without saying that just as a society may cultivate pacifism among its citizens, so it may cultivate militarism–recall the Spartans. This acculturation begins in infancy and obviously depends very much on the method used in raising children. Enough to mention the influence of physical training, awards for victory in competitive games, and, more subtly, the influence of fierce language and of literature that glorifies war and conquest. The question is: can the acculturation of an infant affect a child’s internal organs–for example, the circulatory system–just as physical exercise can affect his musculature? Every doctor knows how various organs of the body can be affected, for good and bad, by the mind, and vice-versa. This said, I will first submit for the readers’ consideration the blood lust evident in Islamic atrocities against Jews and Muslims. I will then consider scholarly evidence of Islamic Jew-hatred, after which I shall consider the Hebraic understanding of how certain behaviors affect the blood stream of human beings in general, leaving the reader to judge for himself how a Muslim’s circulatory system may be affected by his hatred and violence toward Jews.

Now let learn from the accounts of Arabs and ex-Muslims and insiders understanding of Islam.

The Arab Lynching of Jews in Ramallah

Let us now consider the notorious Ramallah lynching in October 2000 at the beginning of the Second Intifada, when a Palestinian mob lynched two Israel Defense Forces reservists who had accidentally entered the Palestinian Authority-controlled city of Ramallah in the West Bank. The brutality of the event, captured in a photo of a Palestinian rioter proudly waving his blood-stained hands to the crowd below, received international coverage.

Aziz Salha, one of the lynchers, proudly waving his blood-stained hands from the police station window. (From Wikipedia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U5-IVKe5QI)

On October 12, 2000, two Israel Defense Forces reservists (serving as drivers), Vadim Nurzhitz and Yossi Avrahami, mistakenly passed an Israeli checkpoint and entered Ramallah. Reaching a Palestinian Authority roadblock, where previously Israeli soldiers were turned back, the reservists were detained by PA policemen and taken to the local police station. Hearing rumors that undercover Israeli agents were in the building, a crowd of more than 1,000 Palestinians gathered at the station, calling for the death of the Israelis and stormed the building.The soldiers were beaten, stabbed, had their eyes gouged out, and were disemboweled. A Palestinian (later identified as Aziz Salha), appeared at the police station window, displayed his blood-stained hands to the crowd, which erupted into cheers. One of the soldier’s bodies was then thrown out the window and stamped and beaten by the enraged mob. One of the bodies was set on fire. Soon after, the mob dragged the two mutilated bodies to Al-Manara Square in the city center as the crowd began an impromptu victory celebration.Media Coverage of the MassacreAn Italian film crew, later learned to be employees of Mediaset, Italy’s largest private television station, captured footage of the lynching [1]. The picture of one of the lynchers waving his blood-stained hands from the window shocked and outraged many around the world, and became another iconic image of the conflict.British photographer Mark Seager attempted to photograph the event but the mob physically assaulted him and destroyed his camera. After the event, he stated, “It [the lynching] was the most horrible thing that I have ever seen and I have reported from Congo, Kosovo, many bad places….I’ll never forget this. It was murder of the most barbaric kind. When I think about it, I see that man’s head, all smashed. I know that I’ll have nightmares for the rest of my life” [2].The day of the lynching in Ramallah, journalists had their cameras ripped away and smashed on the pavement, their film confiscated or ruined, lest they record the bestiality underway.Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered the Israeli security services to find and arrest the lynchers. Israel subsequently tracked down those responsible–enough to mention Aziz Salha, who was arrested in 2001. He admitted to being one of those who broke into the police station and choking one of the soldiers while others beat him bloody. When he saw that his hands were covered with the soldier’s blood, he went to the window and proudly displayed his blood-stained hands to the mob below, and was photographed while doing so. (In 2004, an Israeli court convicted him for the murder of Corporal Vadim Nurzhitz and sentenced him to life imprisonment. In October 2011 he was controversially released as part of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange.)A second incident of Muslim blood lust was gruesomely displayed in Damascus in celebration of the tenth anniversary of the Yom Kippur War. The present writer watched that ceremony on Israel television. The ceremony was graphically described in the October 21, 1983 issue of the Jerusalem Post Magazine under the caption, “Syrian militia trainees [male and female] put on a show for Syrian president Hafez Assad. Martial music reached a crescendo as Syrian teenage girls suddenly bit into and killed live snakes [some four or five feet long], repeatedly tearing off flesh and spitting it out as blood ran down their chins. As Assad and his entourage applauded, the girls then attached the snakes to sticks and grilled them over fire, eating them triumphantly. Others [militiamen] then proceeded to strangle puppies and drink their blood.” The reader does not have to be a Jew to judge who or what the snakes, the puppies, and the blood represent.Even more gruesome was the bloodlust manifested by Shiite Muslims who slaughtered members of the Shah’s forces in Tehran in 1979 when supporters of the Ayatollah Khomeini came into power. The victors engrossed their hands in the bloody organs of their victims and smeared the blood over their faces. (The TV clips of this Islamic barbarism no longer seem to be available on Internet.) But given the media’s anemic “political correctness” regarding Islam on the one hand, synchronized with the anemic response of the ever-so-tolerant liberal democracies of the free world on the other–how should we understand the barbarism that animates hundreds of millions of Muslims on this planet?

 Part IX. Islamic Bellicosity: Blood Lust (cont’d)

The PLO in Lebanon

When the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) entered Lebanon in 1970 (after having been expelled from Jordan), they tipped the power-sharing arrangement between Christians, Muslims, and Druze in favor of the Muslims. The PLO was therefore a major cause of the civil war that followed. The war lasted from 1975 to 1990 and resulted in more than 100,000 civilian fatalities. British journalist Patrick Sills of the London Observer filed a report on the war. To dramatize the world’s reaction to this fratricidal war, Israeli journalist Eliyahu Amiqam (a friend of the present writer) published a running commentary on Sill’s report for his (Hebrew-language) newspaper, Yediot Aharanot:[25]

[Sill writes]: “In the corners of the streets of Beirut, small children exhibit bottles which contain human ears dunked in acid, like pickles or artichokes in vinegar. Bodies are lying in the streets immersed in their coagulated blood, some lacking their procreative organs, which were cut off and put in acid for exhibition by children….”

“This report [Amiqam remarks], was printed not in June 1982, during Israel’s Operation Peace for Galilee [to stop the PLO from bombing Jewish towns]. [No, it] was printed on January 25, 1976, during the Civil War in Lebanon.” We read further: “The number of those killed and wounded, and worse than anything, the kidnapped whose fate was usually horrible and awesome, [had already] reached about 40,000, with both sides [Muslim and Christian Arabs] competing between themselves for the most ferocious actions. Complete villages were pillaged, set on fire, and all their populations eliminated. The Palestinian terrorists were the most extreme and cruelly vicious of all….”

[Now Amiqam asks:] “What did the world say at that time to this frightening situation? Nothing. What did Pope Paul VI say when nuns were raped in front of their parents and brothers and afterwards had their elbows cut? His holiness did not say anything. He was busy at the time protesting against the construction that was going on in Jerusalem. What did the world do at that time to stop the carnage and the horror in Lebanon? Nothing. But six years later [during Israel’s ‘Operation Peace for Galilee’], the world saw various attempts [by the United States and Western Europe] to allow the [PLO] terrorists to remain in their positions where they had succeeded in destroying Lebanon, slaughtering tens of thousands of its population, while establishing a central base for exporting murder on a worldwide scale [all this with the arms of the Soviet Union, the money of Saudi Arabia, the military cooperation of Syria, and the diplomatic patronage of Egypt].”

Amiqam goes on to say: “Until then everything was just fine in Lebanon. The disaster started only after the Jewish army [of Israel] entered Lebanon and began its ‘genocide’ and its ‘final solution’ to the Palestinian problem. Now [all of a sudden] the world showed on TV screens the pictures of war, the killing and destruction, the mothers fleeing with their children in their arms.”

The “world” in this context is the one influenced by the mendacious media of the United States and Western Europe, which denigrated Israel and portrayed the Jew as the villain, more monstrous and ugly than any other.

 The PLO in Israel: The True Nature of the PLO’s War against Israel

The Muslims and Arabs that slaughtered each other during the ten-year civil war in Lebanon are the kinfolk of the Muslims and Arabs who have committed atrocity after atrocity in Israel since the 1993 signing of the Israel-PLO Agreement. Yet, despite the blood lust of the PLO manifested year after year for decades, hence, despite this protracted record of murdering and maiming of more than 15,000 thousand Jewish women and children as well unarmed men in Israel, the governments of Israel–which is to say the cretins who serve as this country’s political leaders–persist in seeking peace with these savages! And one hears not a peep of protest by the military leaders of this country, who, after all, are directly responsible for the safety and lives of Israel’s civilian population! Is it any wonder that there is no end in sight of Arab terrorism? But this means that Israel’s government, which has no written constitution, hence no well-defined structure of political responsibility, is dysfunctional. It means that Israel’s leaders are lacking not only Jewish national pride and purpose, but also any grand national strategy. Hence the present writer has drafted a constitution with a Unitary Executive based on Hebraic and American principles to replace Israel’s current system of multiparty coalition governments, lest Israel’s wellspring of creativity and moral grandeur be desiccated by partisan politics in a protracted war with barbarians.[26]

It’s a travesty to call this war a “clash of civilizations,” the term made famous by the eminent political scientist Samuel Huntington. Syrian-born psychiatrist, Dr, Wafa Sultan, denies that Islam is a civilization, and the American philosopher Lee Harris offers solid arguments for her position. He rejects the multicultural relativism spearheaded by American and European universities, according to which the West is simply one of many cultures, no better or worse than any other.

By civilization Harris means a standard that is trans-national and trans-historical. He sees civilization as having four prerequisites: a stable social order, the co-operation of individuals pursuing their own interests, the ability to tolerate or socialize with one’s neighbors, and a hatred of violence. Clearly, Islam lacks three of the four prerequisites of Harris’ view of a civilization. Hence it is all the more remarkable that Wafa Sultan arrived at the same conclusion. She denied there was clash between the West and Islamic civilization because, in her words, Islam is not a civilization!

But what shall we say of the government of a Jewish state that seeks peace with Islam despite Islam’s unmitigated hatred of Jews? What shall we say of a government that seeks peace with a consortium of Islamic despots that boast of a 1,400-year history of warfare, hence of blood lust? What shall we say of a government which, despite its having the most powerful military force in the Middle East, tolerates the murder and maiming and terrorizing of tens of thousands of its own citizens? What shall we say of the political and military echelons of a government that retreats from pillar to post, and, in the process, expels thousands of Jews from their homes, Jews whose love of the Land of Israel made deserts bloom–a government, moreover, that threatens to make hundreds of thousands of more Jews homeless in order to make room for the creation of a bellicose Arab-Islamic state in Judea and Samaria, the cradle of Jewish civilization?

Doesn’t such a government vitiate the human qualities we should associate with civilization? Where is the respect for reason and human greatness, where is the spiritedness and human compassion, where is the gratitude to the past and respect for traditional values, where is the rule of law without which no civilization is possible? We see instead a government that surrenders Jewish land to Arabs and thus transforms the Jewish state into a haven for jobbers and traitors.

True, Islam is not a civilization, but what has become of civilization in Israel despite its extraordinary medical and technological accomplishments? We contrast vis-à-vis do not dissociate These accomplishments lose their glitter when juxtaposed by the cruelty and destructiveness of a government that expelled thousands of Jews from their intellectually creative and flourishing communities. We thus behold in Israel not a genuine civilization so much as congeries of heartless party hacks and mindless apparatchiks digging their country’s grave. No wonder there are Jewish academics and prime ministers who lack the intellectual integrity or courage to describe the conflict between Jews and Muslims as a conflict of civilizations! Again, did Nazis use their children as human bombs? Does this barbarism cease to be barbarism because semi-educated academics and politicians genuflect to the myth that Islam is a religion based on ethical and intellectual monotheism–by which I mean the Hebraic monotheism from which we derive the primacy of reason, justice, and kindness in human affairs? Indeed, to paraphrase Rabbi Dr. Leo Adler, whoever wishes to understand biblical man must seek to understand him through his relationship with God beginning with these intellectual and moral categories.[27]

As for Muslims themselves, they have never had any doubts about a civilizational conflict between Islam and the West. They have always divided the world into the territory of Dar al-Islam, where Muslims reign, and the territory of Dar al-Harb, where non-Muslims reign, and where Sharia racism requires Muslims to eliminate “infidels” in the name of Islam’s deified Hitler. For the devout Muslim, Western civilization is not merely misguided: it’s evil. Here is the way ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Bazzaz, (1913-1973), Dean of Baghdad Law College, and a former Iraqi Prime Minister, described the clash between Israel and Islam: “The existence of Israel nullifies the unity of our homeland, the unity of our nation and the unity of our civilization, which embraces the whole of this one region. Moreover, the existence of Israel is a flagrant challenge to our philosophy of life and the ideals for which we live, and a total barrier against the values and aims to which we aspire in the world.”[28]

The Imam Hasan al-Banna (1906-1949) of Egypt regarded the Western way of life as decadent–bounded in effect on practical and technical knowledge, discovery, invention, and the flooding of world markets with mechanical products. The West, he said, is incapable of offering to man’s minds a flicker of light, a ray of hope, a grain of faith.[29]

Be that as it may, the clash between the Judeo-Christian West and Islam is nothing less than a world war. Nevertheless, the ruling elites of the West have all but turned a blind eye to the Islamic revival movement, which is now stretching from the Atlantic in the west to China in the east.[30]

Part X. Iran and NecropheliaHaving recounted the savagery of the PLO in Lebanon, it should now be noted that Fatah, the most professional killers of the PLO, trained Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.[31] The training took place in Lebanon’s Bekka Valley in the 1970s. Strange that the PLO, Sunni Muslims, should train Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Shiite Muslims whose most notorious member is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The mentality of Iran’s president is discussed in Michael A. Ledeen, Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West (2009). Here are the salient points.

Dr. Ledeen’s analysis of Ahmadinejad’s writings provides deeper insights into what we superficially call barbarism. The key to understanding the unique nature of Islamic barbarism can be found in Ahmadinejad glorification of death, conforming to Quranic verse Sura 9:11 which exalts the Muslim who “slays and is slain” for Allah.” Ahmadinejad sees in this double entendre the most exquisite art form. He asks, “Is there art more beautiful, more divine, and more eternal than the art of martyrdom?” (100). Ledeen reminds us that Ahmadinejad is “a veteran of one of the bloodiest wars of recent times, the Iran-Iraq conflict, which probably cost his country more than a million dead and maimed” (100).

Ahmadinejad’s praise of Iranian fighters, says Ledeen, “isn’t limited to men shot down on the battlefield in that bloody war; he glorifies what he calls ‘martyrdom’ which in truth was deliberate, criminal slaughter of many tens of thousands of young children. Some of those kids [says Ledeen] were twelve years old or younger. They were sent across the battlefields, into Iraqi territory, as human mine detectors. They walked across the minefields and got blown up…. [Ahmadinejad] indoctrinated them or hypnotized them, and he wanted them to die. Indeed, they were so certain they would be killed that these little children were provided with plastic keys that were said to open the gates of paradise….” (101). According to Mark Helprin, Iran pushed 100,000 young children to their deaths clearing those minefields. That counts 15 percent of Iran’s population as “Volunteer Martyrs”; that chants “Death to America” at each session of parliament; and whose president states that no art “is more beautiful . . . than the art of the martyr’s death” (Wall Street Journal, January 18, 2012).

Ledeen calls this barbarism “necrophilia,” a pathological love of death. He offers a textbook definition of necrophilia. “Necrophilia is defined as ‘the passionate attractions to all that is dead, decayed, putrid, sickly; it is the passion to transform that which is alive into something unalive; to destroy for the sake of destruction… It is the passion to tear apart living structures.’” [32]

This same passion is evident in the PLO-Palestinian Authority which used children as human bombs–a practice more ghastly than the sacrifice of children by the ancient Canaanites. Clearly, the Palestinians have no cultural immunity to necrophilia–and this alone makes nonsense of any peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Returning to Ledeen, he sees necrophilia in “the language Ahmadinejad uses, especially about the Jews, the Israelis, and the Americans. It’s all about the rot of death, and the stink of death, as when he said that Israel is ‘a rotten and stinking corpse’ that is destined to disappear, and went on to proclaim, that Israel ‘has reached the end like a dead rat’”(103).

This is the Ahmadinejad that was allowed to enter the United States to address the United Nations–a venue that accommodates and dignifies despots. Ahmadinejad was also invited to speak at American universities, many of which are havens of nihilism, which is conceptually compatible with necrophilia. Finally, it should be noted that Ahmadinejad, the patron of Hamas and Hezbollah, is one of the most admired leaders of Islamdom, which seems to spawn necrophiliacs.

Interlude: The Unique Understanding of Rebbe Nachman of Breslov (1772-1810)

We shall now present an even more radical view of Israel’s Islamic enemy, gleaned from remarks of a renowned rabbi who, without even alluding to Islam, opens a new way of understanding an affinity to bloodshed on the part of countless Muslims. I refer to Rebbe Nachman of Breslov, The Anatomy of the Soul (Jerusalem: Breslov Research Institute, 1998). Writing under the subheading “Victory or Truth,” Rebbe Nachman declares:

Those who possess the evil characteristic of always desiring to outdo others cannot accept the truth. When people have the desire to always be right even when the truth is plain before their eyes, they will distort it in order to maintain their imagined superiority. This applies to all areas of life [and includes the behavior of nations and their leaders] (68).

Rebbe Nachman teaches that “this evil characteristic is akin to strife. He explains that the source of the urge to be victorious, along with the desire to control others, is none other than one’s own blood. The verse states (Isaiah 63:3), ‘V’yetz nitzcham–Their blood was sprinkled.’ The root of the Hebrew NiTzCham … ‘their blood’ is NeTzaCh … which also translates as ‘victory.’ The desire to be victorious is naturally inherent in the blood. (A related trait of Arab culture is the military doctrine of dissimulation “taqiyya,” which is drawn explicitly from the words of Muhammad and from the examples set by him and his successors. The terrifying significance of taqiyya is revealed by Raymond Ibrahim in the Winter 2010 edition of the Middle East Quarterly). According to Rebbe Nachman, “By blemishing one’s speech–for example, by speaking falsehood–one blemishes one’s bloodstream and, by extension one’s very soul” (69).

Without endorsing the Hebraic view of Rebbe Nachman, Professor Yehoshafat Harkabi, in Arab Attitudes to Israel, quotes the intellectually liberated Arab sociologist Sonia Hamady, who admits that “Lying is a widespread habit among the Arabs, and they have a low idea of truth” (p. 348). Moshe Dayan put it this way:

[The Arabs] live in a world which is not truth and they do this almost like a man who needs hashish in order to feel himself present in the Garden of Eden. Reality is hell! The aim is therefore to swallow a lie-pill, which will give the sensation of Paradise. It often seems to me that all Arabs–and on all levels–act as though under the influence of drugs. Yet illusion is worse than a lie. You make a lie consciously and you dominate it, while the illusion will finally dominate you.[33]

According to Rebbe Nachman of Breslov, “By speaking falsehood, one blemishes one’s bloodstream and, by extension, one’s very soul” (p. 69). Given the notorious mendacity of Arab culture, only a ship of fools would negotiate with Arabs in the expectation of achieving genuine and abiding peace. This is a logical and verifiable fact, not an ethnic slur.

Part XI. Islamic Imperialism

Attempts to equate Islam’s history of bloodshed with that of Jews has been refuted by Raymond Ibrahim, “Conflating History with Theology: Judeo-Christian Violence vs. Islamic Violence.”[34] Besides, the Torah forbids Israel from waging war against any nation that keeps the Noahide Laws. Contrary to Islamic theology, neither in the Torah nor in the Talmud is it commanded or deemed praiseworthy to kill non-Jews. In fact, Jewish law rebukes those who exulted in the death of the Egyptians drowned in the Red Sea, for even the wicked are creatures of God, and they are not beyond salvation. Rebbe Nachman teaches that someone who serves God with all his being can succeed in purifying his blood, can break down within himself the attribute of strife and the desire to rule over others, and thus bring about peace. This has surely been true of various individual Muslims.

[34] See http://www.meforum.org/2105/judeo-christian-violence-vs-islamic-violence, March 15, 2009.

But let us be realistic. We are confronted by, and dare not ignore, a virtually permanent and strategic fact that Islam, from its inception in the seventh century, has glorified bloodshed. In the name of Allah it has ravaged and plundered countless Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Jewish and other communities throughout the Near East, Asia, Africa, and Europe. Indeed, according to the Center for the Study of Political Islam, and as reported in FrontPageMagazine, February 21, 2007, Muslims have slaughtered approximately 270 million people since the ascendancy of Muhammad! These Muslims boast of their military conquests and bloodshed as proof of Arab-Islamic superiority, of the truth of Islam, and of Allah Akhbar. A logical observer would conclude that only the elimination of Islamic arrogance–beginning with the destruction of their holiest places, Mecca and Medina, could remove this scourge of mankind. But what statesman dares think in these terms? Let us therefore probe deeper.

If we try to understand Arab culture in Hebraic terms we would have to go back long before Ibn Khaldun. Indeed, we would have to begin with what Genesis 16:12 says of Ishmael, the archetype of Arab man: “His hand shall be against everyone, and everyone’s hand shall be against him.” Midrash Rabbah (Genesis 45:9) refers to Ishmael as “a savage among men [as Khaldun later said]” But the Midrash speaks of “savage” in “its literal sense,” meaning that “whereas all others plunder wealth, he plunders lives.” Other commentators refer to Ishmael as a prolific man who will have abundant progeny spread throughout the world. That great convert to Judaism Onkelos (c.35-120 CE) says of Ishmael: “He will be dependent on every one and similarly everyone will be dependent upon him” (a prophecy that has come to fulfillment in our times: witness Arab dependence on Western technology and the West’s dependence on Arab oil).

Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra (1092-1167) also construes the reference to Ishmael in Genesis 16:12 as a prophecy: “His hand shall be against everyone,” means that Ishmael will be victorious at first over all nations, and afterwards, everyone’s hand shall be against him, meaning that he will be vanquished in the end.

Now let us consider what Professor Efraim Karsh records at the very outset of his book Islamic Imperialism: A History (2005):

• “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah.’”

–Prophet Muhammad farewell address, March 632

• “I shall cross this sea to their islands to pursue them until there remain no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah.”

– Saladin, January 1189

• “We shall export our revolution throughout the world … until the calls ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’ are echoed all over the world.”

–Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, 1979

• “I was ordered to fight people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad.”

–Osama bin Laden, November 2001

Notice that “Allah” and “Muhammad” constitute the operative terms in this bellicose litany of Islam. Unlike the God of the Bible, Allah is absolutely transcendent: he is pure will without personality. Allah’s absolute transcendence precludes the possibility of human free will or choice. Islam postulates absolute predestination of all that we think, say and do. The totality of all events is irrevocably fixed, preordained, and recorded from eternity. Muslims are programmed, and to be an authentic Muslim one must accept Allah’s program, which requires unending war against infidels. Theologically speaking, there is no such creature as a “Muslim moderate.” This means perpetual war.

Most remarkable is that this conclusion was well understood by no less than John Quincy Adams, one of America’s most learned Secretaries of State! Adams, a Harvard graduate, possessed a remarkably clear, uncompromised understanding of the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad war and dhimmitude. Regarding jihad, Adams states in a series of essays: “…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Quran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”[35]

Hardly less may be inferred from the research of John Perazzo. Here are some passages from his article in FrontPageMagazine, September 18, 2002:

• If you attended religious services this past weekend, recall, for a moment, the preacher’s sermon. Did any portion of his or her message bear some resemblance to this:

“Have no mercy on the Jews. No matter where they are, fight them…. Wherever you are, kill the Jews, the Americans . . . . and those who stand by them. . . It is forbidden to befriend Israelis or to aid them. Don’t love them or enter into agreement with them… They should be slaughtered. They should be murdered.”

• There’s little likelihood of any listener dozing off during such a sermon, which was in fact delivered during worship services at a Gaza mosque on October 13, 2000 by Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabiya, a member of the Palestinian Authority’s “Fatwa Council,” and former acting Rector of Gaza’s Islamic University. Sadly, its content is no aberration, but is representative of the vicious anti-Semitic bigotry regularly thundered from Muslim pulpits all over the Middle East.
• At another Gaza mosque on August 3, 2001, Sheik Ibrahim Madhi delivered this message, which was broadcast by Palestinian Authority television:

“The Quran is very clear on this: The greatest enemies of the Islamic nation are the Jews. . . . All spears should be directed at the Jews. . . . Allah has described them as apes and pigs. . . . Whoever can fight them with his weapons should go out [to the battle]. . . . The Jews have exposed their fangs. Nothing will deter them, except the color of their filthy people’s blood; nothing will deter them except for us voluntarily detonating ourselves in their midst. . . . Blessings for whoever has saved a bullet in order to stick it in a Jew’s head.”

• The Middle East Media Research Institute reports that two months earlier, this same sheikh told worshippers: “Blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his sons’ and plunged into the midst of the Jews, crying ‘Allahu Akbar, praise to Allah.'”
• On April 19, 2002, the Chief Cleric at Mecca’s Grand Mosque called Jews “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the killers of the prophets, and the grandsons of monkeys and pigs.” An Egyptian newspaper recently quoted a preacher from Islam’s` most renowned Al-Azhar University in Cairo, which baldly states, “I hate the Jews, so as to earn a reward from God.”

Perazzo goes on to say: “Examples of such rhetoric emanating from the mouths of clerics are legion in Islamic countries.” Even the otherwise optimistic student of Islam, Daniel Pipes, admits (in FrontPageMagazine.com, September 18, 2002) that this obscene rhetoric “is something that’s part of the heart of the [Islamic] culture, unfortunately. This is a reflection of the depths of anti-Semitism now found in the Muslim world. . . . In many ways, the Muslim world today is comparable to Nazi Germany in the extent to which one finds anti-Semitic themes . . . pervasively throughout the culture. . … Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that it’s something marginal and fringe. It is absolutely central.” (See Pipes, “Islam vs. History, National Review Online: The Corner, July 2, 2012.)

Part XII. Muslim Jew-Hatred

Dr. Robert Wistrich, professor of Modern European and Jewish History at Hebrew University, observes that contemporary Muslim anti-Semitism utilizes many themes and symbols from classic European anti-Jewish bigotry and from Nazi propaganda. Thus it is commonplace to see caricatures of Jews portrayed as devils with hooked noses and jagged, blood-dripping teeth. Cartoons depicting Jews sporting Nazi-style uniforms adorned with swastikas are familiar sights throughout the Middle East, where Jews are often compared to Nazis for their alleged cruelty. In recent months, numerous articles in the Egyptian and Saudi government dailies contained such quotes as these: … “It seems like Hitler is alive again, and is following his old ways, but this time with the Palestinians…. There is no doubt that what is happening on the Holy Palestinian land… renews the Nazi phenomenon.”[36]

In the Middle Eastern press, the Holocaust itself is commonly dismissed as either a gross exaggeration or an outright fabrication. “With regard to the fraud of the Holocaust,” writes Fatma Abdallah Mahmoud in the Egyptian government daily, Al-Akhbar, “many French studies have proven that this is no more than a fabrication, a lie, and a fraud. . . . Hitler himself, whom they accuse of Nazism, is in my eyes no more than a modest ‘pupil’ in the world of murder and bloodshed. He is completely innocent of the charge of frying them in the hell of his false Holocaust. . . . But I, personally and in light of this imaginary tale, complain to Hitler, even saying to him from the bottom of my heart, ‘If only you had done it, brother, if only it had really happened.’ “Notably, in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, Arabic editions of Mein Kampf are hot-selling items.

Hate literature rife with allegations of a Jewish world conspiracy – such as the infamous 19th-century forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”–has gained great popularity throughout the Arab world. Even the most preposterous fables are widely believed by hate-filled extremists. Israelis have been accused of selling hormonally altered fruit to Egyptian men in order to kill their sperm; of supplying Egyptian farmers with poisoned seeds and disease-bearing poultry; of devising and distributing carcinogenic vegetables and shampoos to spread cancer among Arabs; of promoting drug consumption and devil worship in Arab society; of poisoning Arab water supplies; of trying to throw Egyptian society into chaos by campaigning for the legalization of homosexuality; and of following rabbinical exhortations to kill Palestinians as a means of ensuring their own swift entry into paradise. “Hardly a mishap occurs in the Arab world,” Daniel Pipes has written, “which does not get blamed on Jews.” (See, e.g., Middle East Forum, April 19, 2002.)

Pipes further reports: “As if all that were not enough, millions of Muslims accept the notion that Jews forcibly take the blood of non-Jews for ritual purposes. No less a personage than Syrian defense minister Mustafa Tlas once alluded to that “fact” in his 1983 book, The Matzah of Zion. This past March in the Saudi government newspaper Al-Riyadh, a King Faysal University medical professor contributed an article claiming that for the holiday of Purim, Jews “prepare very special pastries” filled with the blood of a Christian or Muslim adolescent. This, the professor [sic!] explained, was in contrast to Passover treats, for which “the blood of Christian and Muslim children under the age of 10 must be used.” The blood for Purim, he elaborated, is collected by placing the victim into “a needle-studded barrel” wherein his body is pierced on all sides, causing “dreadful torment – torment that affords the Jewish vampires great delight as they carefully monitor every detail of the blood-shedding with pleasure and love that are difficult to comprehend.”

Any forms of artistic expression that cast Jews in a positive or sympathetic light are heavily censored throughout the Middle East. The film “Schindler’s List,” for instance, is banned in Arab countries. Even the movie “Independence Day,” which has nothing to do with religious or Middle Eastern affairs, was condemned in the Arab media because it features a heroic Jewish character. In Lebanon the film’s release was delayed until censors had removed all indications of the hero’s Jewish faith, such as a skullcap and a Hebrew prayer. Even the brief appearance of Israelis and Arabs working cooperatively in a desert outpost was edited out of the film.

Given the vast breadth of Muslim anti-Semitism illustrated by the aforementioned examples, it is quite apparent that much of the Islamic world’s current antipathy toward Israel is rooted simply in the refusal to embrace any nation – no matter how small – wherein “infidels” predominate. To justify this bigotry, Muslim fundamentalists can recite an endless litany of alleged Jewish transgressions – most notably Israel’s “occupation” of Palestinian land. But let us reflect, for a moment, upon this lynchpin of Muslim grievances.

The purported need for a Palestinian homeland became a monumental issue only after the West Bank and Gaza came under Israeli control during the 1967 Six Day War – a conflict that was forced upon Israel when several Arab armies ringed the tiny nation with 250,000 troops, 2,000 tanks, and 700 aircraft. Prior to that, it was not an issue at all. When Jordan and Egypt controlled the West Bank and Gaza from 1948 to 1967, neither of those countries made the barest effort to establish a Palestinian state on those lands; and neither country was criticized for “occupying” those regions.

Daniel Pipes. A Wishful Thinking Realist

The refusal to face uncomfortable truths about those who seek our destruction only prevents us from comprehending the enormity of their hatred. And that is a recipe for disaster of a magnitude beyond words. Unfortunately, the eminent Dr. Daniel Pipes obscures the problem by his emphasis or wishful thinking concerning “Muslim moderates,” which I shall now refute using his own writings, but first a message from Marco Polo to confute Pipes:

Today the Muslim’s overweening pride, his sense of cultural superiority, his confidence in Allah’s reward of the faithful, has been shattered by Western dominance. This dominance casts doubt on the truth of Muhammad’s revelation and therefore alarms as well as infuriates the Muslim soul.[37] For the traditional Muslim, religion provides not only universal significance; it also constitutes the ultimate basis and focus of his identity and group loyalty.[38] It bears reiterating that Muslims devoutly believe that the Qur’an is God’s literal uncreated word, without any influence on it from Mohammed as its transmitter. It is not historically, culturally, or linguistically contingent on the circumstances of its revelation[39] Therefore, Islam cannot be reformed without rejecting its deity, its theology, and its prophet..

Islamic hatred of the West must therefore be understood in theological as well as in political and psychological terms.

This hatred may be veiled among many Muslims who appear as “moderates,” or it may explode in the rage of Muslim “extremists.” One thing is clear: the barbarism perpetrated on September 9, 2011 was gleefully celebrated in the Muslim street throughout Islamdom. That gruesome display makes the distinction between “moderates” and “extremists” problematic. Bernard Lewis writes:

Even when Muslims cease believing in Islam, they may retain Islamic habits and attitudes. Thus, among Muslim Marxists, there have been ulema [doctors of law] and dervishes [popular mystics], defending the creed and proclaiming the (revolutionary) holy war against the (imperialist) infidel… Even when the faith dies, loyalty survives; even when loyalty fades, the old identity, and with it a complex of old attitudes and desires, remains, as the only reality under the superficial, artificial covering of new values and ideologies.[40]

Not that there are no genuine Muslim moderates, meaning Muslims who sincerely deplore Islamic extremists. Daniel Pipes mentions some notable Muslim moderates.[41] Like many others, however, he obscures the magnitude of the threat Islam poses to the West by waving the flag of Muslim “moderates,” a minute number which, in war–and the West is at war–is strategically insignificant. He himself has indicated that many “moderate” Muslims may be or become quiescent “extremists.” when he quotes the following spokesmen: (1) Algerian secularist Said Sadi: “A moderate Islamist is someone who does not have the means of acting ruthlessly to seize power immediately.” (2) Osmane Bencherif, former Algerian ambassador to Washington: “It is misguided policy to distinguish between moderate and extreme Islamists. The goal of all is the same: to construct a pure Islamic state, which is bound to be a theocracy and totalitarian.” (3) Mohammad Mohaddessin, director of international relations for the People’s Mojahadin in Iran, a leading opposition force: “Moderate fundamentalists do not exist…. It’s like talking about a moderate Nazi.”[42] Although these statements refer to “Islamists” and “fundamentalists,” these labels refer to the Islam of the Quran and Sharia. As Henri Boulad, an Egyptian Jesuit, and a specialist in Islam, states in an article, “L’Islamisme, c’est l’Islam” (“Islamism is Islam”):

This statement is perfectly consistent with history and geography, with the Quran and the sunna, with the life of Muhammad and the evolution of Islam, with what Islam says about itself. I reject the position of people–Muslims or Christians–who bury their heads in the sand like ostriches … refuse to see the situation objectively, or take their wishes for realities, on behalf of dialogue and tolerance.[43]

Moorthy Muthuswamy: Statistical Analysis of Islam-based Terror,

Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy is an Indian by birth nuclear physicist who received his Ph.D. from Stony Brook University. In a 2009 study (see Bibliography), he points out that a number of important advances made in the past decade are now helping us to put together a scientific model or theory of the phenomenon of religion-based terror.

This has ranged from new studies on the contrasting evolution of India and Pakistan, to a recent statistical analysis of Islamic doctrines and an analysis of the impact of the propagation of Islam funded through Middle Eastern petrodollars.

On the side of tackling terror, insights have been gained on the origin of terror and its propagation. We are also able to better understand how a broad coalition of people and nations could be mobilized to tackle terror. Some ideas have been developed on how, by advancing rational thinking, one might wean away educated Muslims from terrorist ideologies.

The context of studying the relative evolution of India and Pakistan is that although the majority religions in these two nations are different, they share language, culture, ethnicity, and culinary habits, and yet Hindu-majority India has managed to create wealth and focus on development but Islamic Pakistan has turned into a major fountainhead of religion-based terror.

Statistical analysis is a useful tool for deciphering the character of an entity or ideology that sends out mixed signals, perhaps to camouflage its true intent….

A recent groundbreaking statistical examination of Islamic doctrines appears to overwhelmingly identify the roots of the motivation to conquer with the doctrines themselves. About sixty-one percent of the contents of the Quran are found to speak ill of unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses of the Quran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity. While there might be some subjectivity to this analysis, the overwhelming thrust of the inferences should be taken note of. This new analysis sheds light on not only understanding the roots of terror, but also on how to address Islamic radicalism…

A multi-pronged approach to tackling terror has to involve taking certain nations to task on the grounds of sponsoring crimes against humanity, for backing certain terror outfits and other entities. However, this has become particularly complicated because a broad ideology-based movement located in these nations is behind terror funding and sponsorship. Hence, this undertaking is necessarily massive and calls for a broad coalition of nations. Building up, on the basis of grievance, a coalition of states that are victims of terror, including ones from the developing world–India, Thailand, the Philippines, to name a few–is called for. In particular, a large and strategically located nation such as India, a perennial victim of religion-based terror and the next-door neighbor of Pakistan, gives the West some compelling ideological, political, and military options.

Part XIII. “Islam and Nazism­­­”–By Professors Paul Eidelberg and Will Morrisey

Winston Churchill defined Mein Kampf as “the new Quran of faith and war.”[44] Consistent therewith, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the notorious former Mufti of Jerusalem, declared, “There is a definite similarity between the principles of Islam and the principles of Nazism.”

Hitler grounds his Jew-hatred in racism as well as atheism. His Jew-hatred flows from the sewers of nineteenth-century ‘race theory.’ Its calculated blasphemy, its materialism (despite Hitler’s self-described ‘idealism’), and most obviously its idolatry of a ‘master race,’ ought to offend, and deeply offend, any serious student of the Quran. Islam calls for the conversion of all ‘races’ to Islam, and it does much more than merely call for such conversion–it conquers for it. Moreover, the insistent legalism of Islam sets strict limits on any would-be tyrant. To be sure, Islam is ‘totalistic,’ as are most religions. Islam seeks to explain and to regulate all of human life. This suggests that Islam is ‘totalitarian.’ Various scholars–Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes among them–deny this.[45]

What links Islam to Nazism is the ethos of jihad. For both Islam and Nazism war is not merely a means to an end: mere conquest. War for both is a moral imperative: for the Nazi, to purge the world of racial impurity, for the Muslim, to purge the world of religious impurity. Both have or require an enemy: for the Muslim the ‘infidel,’ for the Nazi the ‘Jew,’ Accordingly, both Islam and Nazism aim at purifying i.e. conquering the world, and there is no limit to the violence that may be used to achieve that aim. The genocide perpetrated by Muslims against the Armenians preceded the genocide the Nazis perpetrated against the Jews.

The Nazis regarded the Jews as a virus infecting mankind, something that had to be eradicated. Although Muslims reject this racism–for a Jew could convert to Islam–Islam’s contempt for non-believers has much in common with the Nazi’s contempt for non-Aryans, Jews in particular. As in Nazism, Islam has never respected the sanctity of human life; it has always regarded infidels, Jews or Christians, as devoid of human rights–as subhuman. Bat Ye’or has documented fourteen centuries of dhimmitude–the degradation and dehumanization of countless Jews and Christians.[46] Dhimmitude is inherent in the ethos of jihad–the most distinctive principle of Islam.

Also inherent in the ethos of jihad, but which has no parallel in Nazism, is the will to martyrdom. The most horrific manifestation of this jihad ethos is the homicide-suicide bomber. Islam may forbid what may be termed ‘personal’ suicide but not in the ethos of holy war. That Arab parents can exult in their children being sacrificed as human bombs is of course mind-boggling. This pagan-like phenomenon indicates that the sanctity of human life is not a normative Islamic doctrine. Indeed, on page after page of the Quran¸ unbelievers are consigned to Hell–Islam’s crematoria.

If the will to martyrdom is construed in terms of sacrificing the individual for the sake of the community, then Islam converges with Nazism. While Muslims exalt the umma, the Islamic nation, Nazis exalt the volk, the Aryan race. Lost in both is the dignity of the individual.

One might go so far as to say that Nazi militarism is jihad secularized–jihad without religious pretensions and obfuscations. Although literary Islam and Nazism have profound differences, these are of little significance to the victims of these militant doctrines. The one reduces human beings to dhimmis, the other to slaves. Militarism in a religious as well as in an atheistic creed means expansionism, murder, and degradation.

Not only is Mein Kampf a fast-selling title in the region, but even in Egypt, which has [or had] a peace treaty with Israel, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has reappeared on a forty-one part Egyptian television program and in recycled form in Arab print media. And this is actually one of the least toxic of such excrescences. Palestinian Authority TV had this to say about Jews and Judaism: “Their Torah today is just a collection of writings in which those people wrote lies about God, His prophets and His teachings …To their prophets they attribute the greatest crimes: murder, prostitution, and drunkenness. The Jews do not believe in God …” Meanwhile, in countless mosques Muslims are poisoned by recent Islamic sermons denigrating Jews.

Der Sturmer is tame compared to the anti-Semitic cartoons of the Arab world.[47] Such is their hatred and loathing that Arabs depicts Jews as snakes, dogs, spiders, rats, and locusts.

Some scholars may contend that what has here been imputed to Islam should in truth be imputed to “Islamism.” They allege that Islamism, as distinct from Islam, twists Quranic teachings to un-Quranic uses. The candid scholar will admit that the Quran lends itself to such twists, and much more clearly so viewed from the Sharia, Islamic law. Robert Westrich lists Quranic verses condemning a variety of vices imputed to certain Jews, including falsehood, distortion, cowardice, greed, corruption of Scripture.[48] But the fact that the Quran condemns these vices does not preclude those influenced by the Quran from attributing such vices to the Jews–the more readily so given the Quran’s unrelenting degradation of non-believers. This degradation was canonized by the Umariyah–the legal code of the seventh-century Caliph Umar–which established dhimmitude. That dhimmitude was also construed as an act of charity or patronage hardly minimizes its dehumanization of Jews and Christians under Muslim rule. Indeed, as Bat Ye’or has shown, the condition of the dhimmi was in certain respects inferior to that of a slave.[49]

Still, while admitting that Jew-hatred is inherent in Islam, why has it metamorphosed into the Nazi-like anti-Semitic race-baiting that now inundates the Muslim world?

The English themselves installed the notorious anti-Semite, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Much of the Mufti’s early material derived from “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a document that focuses not on racial categories but on the charge that Jews are Satanists associated with democracy, capitalism, and socialism.

For the true racist anti-Semitism we must look at the inroads Nazis made in the Middle East before and during the Second World War, when they exploited the sentiments of Arab populations eager to throw off British and French imperialism. This story is well known, as is the collaboration of the Mufti of Jerusalem in deepening those inroads. Seyyed Qutb, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood continued anti-Semitic propaganda after the war, combining the Protocols’ ‘Satanism’ charge with ‘race theory.’ In one of those spectacular reversals seen only in the nightmare land of propaganda, where the principle of non-contradiction may be suspended so long as the purpose is sufficiently malicious, some Arabs began to charge Israel with Nazi-like racism, as the first chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Ahmad Shukeiry, was wont to do.[50] And to bring things full circle … Yasser Arafat … referred to the Grand Mufti as “our hero,” claiming to have been “one of his troops” in the 1948 war.

If distinctions are to be made between Islam and Islamism, two are in order. First and foremost, Islamism is a rejection of Arab nationalism and, in this respect, a return to Mu’tazilite (or classical) Islam. However, Islamists have been influenced by modernism, which makes the return to Mu’tazilite Islam impossible. Second, Islamism has adopted the anti-Semitic racism of Nazism.

Terrorism is Islamism’s weapon of choice. Another weapon or technique of conquest is immigration, a technique of traditional Islam. Europe has been a major target. In the United States, Daniel Pipes reports, every leading Islamic group has links with Islamist terrorist groups, as do eighty percent of the mosques; half-a-dozen terrorist acts in New York City in the 1990s arose out of such links, as of course did the attacks of September 9, 2011.

The Shiite Muslims of Iran and the Sunni Muslims of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and elsewhere try to outbid one another in funding madrasas run by Islamist mullahs. These institutions are ideological breeding-grounds for anti-Semitism and terrorism.

The only way to overcome this two-fold phenomenon in the Muslim world of today is to change the political regimes that now rule that world. However, the existing regimes in the Islamic world are highly unlikely to change (except for the worse) by means of internal forces–‘inside-out.’ Despotism can be quite stable. Only a comprehensive geopolitical strategy will transform those regimes, ‘outside-in.’ There is no alternative to overcoming the convergence of Islam and Nazism.

 

Endnotes (Where necessary, see Selected Bibliography for complete publication data.)

[1] See Kenneth Hart Green, “Leo Strauss’ Challenge to Emil Fackenheim: Heidegger, Radical Historicism, and Diabolical Evil,” in S. Portnoff, J. A. Diamond, and M.D. Yaffe, Emil L. Fackenheim: Philosopher, Theologian, Jew, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2008). For a refutation of Islamic supremacism—understood as the “final revelation”— see Paul Eidelberg, Toward a Renaissance of Israel and America: The Political Theology of Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh (Springdale, AR: Lightcatcher Books, 2009), Preface.

[2] See Paul Eidelberg, A Political Scientist in Israel: From Athens to Jerusalem (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2010), ch. 6, a landmark essay on “demophrenia,” which offers a logical and psychological analysis of the most serious mental disorder of our times, virtually unrecognized because it is rooted in university-bred doctrine moral relativism, which permeates and emasculates the mentality of democracy’s opinion makes and decision makers.

[3] “The Crisis of Our Times,” Congressional Record, Senate, July 31, 1968, E.7150-E.7157

[4] See Adda B. Boseman, “The Nuclear Freeze Movement: Conflicting More and Political Perspectives on War and Its Relation to Peace,” Conflict 5:4 (1985), 274.

[5] Ibid., 274-275, 280.

[6] Ibid., 277.

[7] I am here indebted to Robert R. Reilly (in email correspondence) for this observation.

[8] George Weigel, Faith. Reason, and the War Against Jihadism: A Call to Acton (New York: Doubleday, 2007), 17.

[9] Cited in Ibn Warraq, Why I am Not a Muslim (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2003), 208, originally published in 1995, hence before 9/11.

[10]Winston Churchill, The River War (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899 1st ed.. vol. II, 248-50.

[11] Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet: Islam, History, Theology, Impact on the World.

[12] Trifkovic, 43.

[13] Ibid., 44, 50.

[14] Ibid., 50. See Ibn Warraq, Why I am Not a Muslim (New York: Prometheus Books 2003), 97, originally published in 1995, who rejects this relativism.

[15] Trifkovic, 132. Muir’s statement also appears in Ibn Warraq, 88.

[16] Ibid., 19.

[17] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles (New York: Doubleday, 1955), pp. 73-74. Judging from Daniel Pipes’ essay “Uncovering Early Islam,” National Review Online, May 16, 2012, http://www.danielpipes.org/11280/uncovering-early-islam, the jury is still out as to whether Muhammad really existed. In a review of Robert Spencer, Did Muhammad Exist? (Wilmington: ISI, 2012). Pipes writes:

 

The year 1880 saw the publication of a book that ranks as the single most important study of Islam ever. Written in German by a young Jewish Hungarian scholar, Ignaz Goldziher, and bearing the nondescript title Muslim Studies (Muhammedanische Studien), it argued that the hadith, the vast body of sayings and actions attributed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad, lacked historical validity. Rather than provide reliable details about Muhammad’s life, Goldziher established, the hadith emerged from debates two or three centuries later about the nature of Islam…. [This opinion does not in the least affect the issue of the character of Islamic ideology, whose savagery is plain to any candid reader—as it was to Arab philologist and historian Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406)—regardless of any revisionist speculation about the dating of Islamic scriptures or even about Muhammad’s existence (PE).]

The revisionists postulate a radically new account of early Islam. Noting that coins and inscriptions from the seventh century mention neither Muhammad, the Koran, nor Islam, they conclude that the new religion did not appear until about 70 years after Muhammad’s supposed death. Spencer finds that “the first decades of the Arab conquest show the conquerors holding not to Islam as we know it but to a vague creed [Hagarism, focused on Abraham and Ishmael] with ties to some form of Christianity and Judaism.” In very brief: “the Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist, or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him” – namely an Anti-Trinitarian Christian rebel leader in Arabia.

Only about 700 A.D., when the rulers of a now-vast Arabian empire felt the need for a unifying political theology, did they cobble together the Islamic religion. The key figure in this enterprise appears to have been the brutal governor of Iraq, Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. No wonder, writes Spencer, that Islam is “such a profoundly political religion” with uniquely prominent martial and imperial qualities. No wonder it conflicts with modern mores.

[18] Bat Yo’er, Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations and Collide (Farleigh Dickenson University Press, 2002).

[19] Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong? The book was in page-proofs when the Twin Towers were destroyed by Muslim terrorists.

[20] See http://www.yeshua.co.uk and http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-polytheism.htm.

[21] See http://www.radicalislam.org/news/danish-historian-prosecuted-private-speech-against-muslim-honor-violence.

[22] Phillip J. Baram, The Department of State in the Middle East 1919-1945 (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978), 46.

[23] See http://amilimani.com/2012/05/a-perspective-on-islam/#more-1734.

[24] See Paul Eidelberg, Beyond the Secular Mind: A Judaic Response to the Problems of Modernity (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989), ch. 9.

[25] The following report is elaborated in Beyond the Secular Mind, pp. 37-38.

[26] See Paul Eidelberg, Jewish Statesmanship Lest Israel Fall (Israel: ACPR Publications, 2000); (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2002); The Myth of Israeli Democracy: Toward a Truly Jewish Israel (Fullerton, Ca: Davidson Press, 2007); An American Political Scientist in Israel (Lanham: Lexington books, 2010).

[27] See Leo Adler, The Biblical View of Man (Jerusalem & New York: Urim Publications, 2007), p. 21. Adler writes: “The greatest importance that the Bible attributes to humility is apparent in the anecdotal sharpness with which Scripture attacks every form of self-image, arrogance, and presumptuousness. Just as humility is the mark of the great pious men [indeed, the Rabbis deem it highest virtue], so too is the almost self-deifying power characterizes paganism… ” p. 52.

[28] Cited in Yehoshafat Harkabi, Arab Attitudes to Israel, p. 97.

[29] See John J. Donohue and John L. Esposito (eds.), Islam in Transition: Muslim Perspectives (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 79, and contrast Huntington, p. 213. Esposito is a leading Muslim apologist. See his The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).

[30]An amusing as well as horrific aspect of the clash between Islam and the West was reported on April 12, 2012 by Raymond Ibrahim (http://www.meforum.org/3211/islamic-adult-breastfeeding-fatwas), which reads in part:

Back in May 2007, Dr. Izzat Atiya, head of Al Azhar University’s Department of Hadith, issued a fatwa, or Islamic legal decree, saying that female workers should “breastfeed” their male co-workers in order to work in each other’s company. According to the BBC: He said that if a woman fed a male colleague “directly from her breast” at least five times they would establish a family bond and thus be allowed to be alone together at work. “Breast feeding an adult puts an end to the problem of the private meeting, and does not ban marriage,” he ruled. “A woman at work can take off the veil or reveal her hair in front of someone whom she breastfed.”

Atiya based his fatwa on a hadith—a documented saying or action of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and subsequently one of the Sharia sources of jurisprudence. Many Egyptians naturally protested this decree—hadith or no hadith—though no one could really demonstrate how it was un-Islamic; for the fatwa conformed to the strictures of Islamic jurisprudence…“ It has also been reported that Egypt’s Islamist-dominated parliament is set to introduce a law allowing husbands to have sex with their dead wives up to six hours after death! (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-4221310,00.html.) This “farewell intercourse” exemplifies the necrophilia discussed by Ledeen in the next end note.

[31] See Michael A. Ledeen, Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2009), 99. Pagination references hereafter cited in the text.

[32] Ledeen, p. 103.

[33] Cited in Michael Brecher, The Foreign Policy System of Israel (London: Oxford University Press, 1972), 354-355; Moshe Dayan: Story of My Life (Jerusalem: Steimatzky, 1976), 332.

[34] See http://www.meforum.org/2105/judeo-christian-violence-vs-islamic-violence, March 15, 2009.

[35] See Andrew G. Bostom, FrontPageMagazine.com., September 29, 2004.

[36] See http://library.eb.co.uk/eb/article-35212 (Robert S. Wistrich, 1999.

[37] See Daniel Pipes, In the Path of God, p. 182.

[38] See Bernard Lewis, Islam and the West, p. 136.

[39] I am here indebted to Robert R. Reilly (in private correspondence) for this observation.

[40] Lewis, Islam in History, p. 7.

[41] See Daniel Pipes, “Who will stand up for Moderate Muslims,” Jerusalem Post, September 24, 2003, p. 7 (italics added). Contrast Robert Spencer, Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West, p. 300, who writes: “Ultimately, if moderate Islam is ever to become the dominant form of Islam around the world, the impetus must come from Muslims themselves. They must do it by renouncing some aspects of Islamic tradition and history—most especially jihad and dhimmitude.”

[42] Pipes, Militant Islam Reaches America, pp. 46-47. Olivier Roy, The Failure of Political Islam, p. 41, defines “moderates” in secular Islamic regimes as those who are “partisans of reIslamization from the bottom up (preaching, establishing sociological movements) while pressuring leaders (in particular through political alliances) to promote Islamization from the top (introducing the shariah into legislation) …” But if the government should take an anti-Islamic stance unaffected by peaceful protest, revolution becomes a right and an obligation.

[43] Cited in Bat Yo’er, Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations and Collide, (Farleigh Dickenson University Press, 2002), p. 339.

[44] Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948), p. 55.

[45] See Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 31; Pipes, Militant Islam Reaches America, pp. 39-40, who distinguishes between Islam and Islamism and regards only the latter as totalitarian.

[46] Bat Yo’er, pp. 85, 87.

[47] For an extensive collection of these cartoons accompanied by penetrating political analysis, see Arieh Stav, Peace: The Arabian Caricature, A Study of Anti-Semitic Imagery.

[48] See Westrich, Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred.

[49] Bat Yo’er, p. 89.

[50] See Westrich, p. 247.

Selected Bibliography Listed

Elyahu Benamozegh, Israel and Humanity (Springdale, AR: Lightcatcher Books, 2009).

Paul Eidelberg, Toward a Renaissance of Israel and America: The Political Theology of Rabbi Eliyahu

_______, Jewish Statesmanship Lest Israel Fall (Israel: ACPR Publications, 2000); Lanham: University Press of America, 2002).

_______, An American Political Scientist in Israel (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2010).

_______, Beyond the Secular Mind: A Judaic Response to the Problems of Modernity (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989.

1. E. von Grunebaum, Modern Islam (London: Rutledge & Kegan, 1968), Introduction.

D.F. Green (ed.), Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel (Geneva: al-Azhar, Academy of Islamic Research, Published in English in 1971).

Yehoshafat Harkabi, Arab Attitudes to Jews (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972).

Robert Westrich: Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred (New York: Pantheon Books, 1991).

Bernard Lewis, Islam and the West (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).

Olivier Roy, The Failure of Political Islam (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994).

Arieh Stav, Peace: The Arabian Caricature, A Study of Anti-Semitic Imagery (New York: Gefen, 1999).

Daniel Pipes, In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power (New Brunswick: Transaction, 2002).

_______, Militant Islam Reaches America (New York: W. W. Norton, 2002).

Raphael Patai, The Arab Mind (New York: Hatherleigh Press, 2002. rev. ed.).

Bat Ye’or, Islam and Dhimmitude (Madison: Dickenson University Press, 2002).

Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet, Islam (Boston: Regina Orthodox Press, 2002).

Kenneth R. Timmerman, Preachers of Hate (New York: Crown Forum, 2003).

Robert Spencer, Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2003) Publishing,

Lee Harris, Civilization and Its Enemies (New York: Free Press, 2004).

Andrew G. Bostom, ed., The Legacy of Jihad (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005).

Robert Spencer, The Truth about Muhammad (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2006).

Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006).

George Weigel, Faith, Reason, and the War Against Jihadism (New York: Doubleday, 2007).

Michael Radu, Europe’s Ghost: Tolerance, Jihadism, and the Crisis in the West (New York: Encounter, 2009).

Michael A. Ledeen, Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2009).

Moorthy S. Muthuswami, Defeating Political Islam: The New Cold War (New York: Prometheus Books, 2009).

Robert R. Reilly, The Closing of the Muslim Mind (Wilmington: ISI Books, 2010).