The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)

A classical liberal education teaches that one must be able to analyze a subject, study it from all angles, differentiate between facts, documentable truth, opinion, and fable, and rationally reach a justifiable conclusion. A classical liberal mind dictates to itself that the maxims it learned are to be applied in the real world, and to completely deny a documentably accurate description of events is the ultimate fraud. Robert Spencer has put together an overview of how Islam has been understood and used by many of it's adherents in a manner that is highly detrimental, nay, deadly to those who did not agree with it. A strength are the quotations from source documents and people, and the references to other material for those who want to investigate in depth. Having read most of the reference material, this is a review for me, but it is a concise, fairly complete, and completely reliable review of many basic and irrefutable facts, quotes, documents, and historical findings. For those who are just approaching this subject, this is a magnificent first book. I believe Mr. spencer is trying to achieve two very difficult learning experiences with this book. One is that there is much in Islam that that needs to be either deleted or reformed in a manner such that it cannot be reconstituted. Historically, every attempt at reformation, whether in Andalusia or Baghdad during the so-called and false "Golden Ages", i.e. every time moderate forward thinking Muslims speak out and make any progress, the radicals squash them and Jihad and Dhimmitude rule again with quotations from the basic precepts of the Holy Qur'an and the Hadiths and Traditions as their justification. Second is that everyone should be able to openly and honestly discuss the Holy Qur'an and the Hadiths and the Traditions and the historical reality without being called racists and bigots. Islam, with all of its good, bad, and ugly needs to be examined in detail in the great marketplace of ideas. To present only the Islamic apologists side results in a very distorted and mostly false picture that is a denial of documentable reality. To argue based primarily on emotions, as the apologists do, is degrading. To argue that only Muslims can understand and interpret Islam is patently false and completely demeaning to all non-Muslims and any one with any intellectual honesty. In order to ensure that everyone has enough knowledge to participate in the great discussion in the marketplace of ideas, this book presents an excellent knowledge base, and should be read by every non-Muslim, so they can understand the unbelievable struggle the moderates within Islam are going to have to wage if Islam is not going to continuously revert to the radicals views. It should be read by every Muslim so that even they can understand their religion and history as it relates to others and the radicals, as they are not taught this in their Mosques or Maddrasses, and thusly the moderates can truly know that they face a monumental, but necessary, task. Sir Winston Churchill is quoted in this book. He foresaw the evil of the Nazis almost before anyone else; he forsaw the Iron Curtain and the evil of communist Russia almost before anyone else; he speaks about some aspects of Islam that must be reformed or Islam will always be a religion and lifestyle promoting and realizing the subjugation of women and non-Muslims. Churchill was the voice in the wilderness that was recognized to be perfectly correct just before it was too late with the Nazis and the Communists. Hopefully this book by robert Spencer will serve the purpose, since Sir Winston is no longer with us; just his prophetic words. If moderate Muslims cannot win this necessary battle, then they must be willing to ally themselves with non-Muslims. Hopefully this book will provide the vital mustard seed of reality that the Islamic apologists need in order to reenter the world of reason and factual documentation so that they can join the battle on the side of reason and rationality, and not the side of the jihadists. This book admirably suits the purpose as described above. It should be required reading in every high school, college, board room, governmental office, living room, church, mosque, temple, and every house of worship of every religion. The learning is not just about religion, but the way of life (Shari'a) that comes with Islam.

Robert Spencer has written or edited several outstanding works on Islam and the challenge it poses to a free West. This book, part of the Politically Incorrect Guide to... series is a more informal, easier-to-read version of his earlier works. Thus there is not too much new material here if you have read his earlier volumes. But having a more popular level volume on this subject is important, if for no other reason that people are busy and pressed for time. So a volume like this with its important contents can be scanned through in several hours. Spencer covers a number of important issues. One major topic is that of the Crusades. Of course whenever people express concern about Islamic terrorism, and ask whether Islam is really a religion of peace, the usual tactic is to raise the issue of the Crusades. The implication is that the Christian West is no better than Islam, and perhaps worse, because of the Crusades. And the Crusades are often dragged up by Muslim apologists almost as an excuse for present day jihad and terrorist attacks. It is as if the Crusades justify modern terrorist movements. Thus Spencer devotes a good third of this book to examining the issue of the Crusades in some detail. Spencer discusses the reasons why the Crusades began, and clears up a number of myths surrounding them. In short, he argues, it is more accurate to view the Crusades as a defensive war, a reaction to 400 years of Islamic expansion and imperialism. The attempt to reclaim the Holy Lands and rescue Christians was a big factor in the Crusades. While much excess of violence took place, and the Crusades were far from perfect, they do need to be seen in context. A number of points are raised by Spencer. For example, he cites Muslim authorities who in fact claim that Muslims tended to fare better in lands taken by the Crusaders than in Muslim lands! And as for the 1099 sack of Jerusalem, yes it was barbaric in many ways. Yet it was not out of line with standard military practices of the day, be they Western or Muslim. Indeed, Muslim commentators of the day took a rather laconic interest in the whole matter. It was only later that this episode in particular, and the Crusades in general, became ammunition in the Muslim propaganda wars. And what about equally odious Muslim offensives, such as the sack of Constantinople in 1453? While we constantly hear Westerners today apologising for what we did or did not do long ago, one hardly ever hears Muslims apologising for this event, or the massacre of the Armenians from 1915 to 1917, or dozens of other major Muslim atrocities. Where is the hand-wringing over these acts? Why are only Western shortcomings highlighted? Spencer also examines the practices of Islam over the centuries: its oppression of women, it denial of freedom of conscience; its totalitarian nature, and its justification of jihad. Consider this last issue, for example. Many will argue that jihad is not really to be understood literally, that Islam is a religion of peace, and that only extremist Muslims practice violence. Not so, argues Spencer: "violent jihad warfare against unbelievers is not a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists, but a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology". Thus all four major Sunni schools of jurisprudence agree on the importance of jihad. Indeed, Islam is unique among the world's religions "in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers". Spencer cites chapter and verse (or sura) from the Koran, along with sayings from the hadith (traditions) and examples from the life of Muhammad and his followers which make clear that the use of force is a mainstay in Islam, not an aberration. Many other myths about Islam are here convincingly dealt with. Spencer concludes by reminding us that we are in a war. It is a war "between two vastly different ideas of how to govern states and order societies". In this struggle "the West has nothing to apologize for and a great deal to defend". The differences between Islamic sharia law and totalitarian rule and Western freedoms and democracy are very real indeed. The two cannot co-exist. One will prevail, and Spencer knows which one he would have persevere. He finishes with four simple proposals: Western foreign aid must be tied to the treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim nations; global alliances need to be reconfigured on this same basis; Muslim nations must renounce sharia expansionism; and the West must embark upon a full-scall search for alternate energy sources, so that we no longer have to rely on Middle Eastern oil. All in all this brief volume contains a lot of helpful information. Many myths and misunderstandings about the nature of Islam and its threats are carefully dealt with here. While such information does not mean that we treat individual Muslims disrespectfully, it does remind us that there are two different ways of life competing for supremacy, and we need to be aware of this struggle and fortified with the right information. This volume helps us in that task.

On 23 June 2011 a Dutch court acquitted Geert Wilders of the crime of "hate speech" against Islam and the Koran. Muslim groups may appeal the ruling to a European court. The "hate speech," was it that of Wilders, or that written in the Koran? Robert Spencer's Guide is just that, a guide exposing the hate speech in the Koran and in the revered commentaries. In emphasized blocks through his book, Spencer contrasts the gentle words of Jesus with those of the rigid Muhammad. Spencer's book was published in 2005, but events since simply reinforce and update the excellent foundation Spencer has provided us. And Spencer is clear at condemning the appeasement policy of the American Government and the West generally. In the name of multiculturalism and anti-colonialism and anti-racism, Muslims may condemn Western ideas, but the West is not supposed to respond. And if one does so, like Spencer, he was condemned for "hate speech" by the left-wing extremist group, the Southern Poverty Law Center. Unfortunately, groups like the SPLC sometimes work with American police and other authorities in this appeasement policy. Recall the Muslim mass murderer, the army psychiatrist who killed fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood base in Texas. For years Nidal Malik Hasan spewed his hateful, anti-Western views, not hiding them. He even revealed his hatred of the West in formal speeches before other soldiers. Why did no one alert authorities that he was an enemy? Because to expose the anti-American venom displayed by Hasan, a soldier of the United States, to challenge him, to report him, one would become a victim of SPLC-type tyranny and be accused of bigotry, hate-speech, and punished by the army's politically correct legal system. No one dared to fight the politically correct, pro-Muslim policy. Consequently, Hasan killed 12 and wounded 31. The enemy was not only within our ranks, he was protected by a policy of appeasement. Spencer exposed that policy 4 years before the shootings. Too bad more people did not read Spencer's Guide to Islam! Around 19 June 2011 Lance Corporal Yonathan Melaku of the Marine Reserves was arrested near the Pentagon with what some thought were explosives as well as al-Qaeda literature. In spring 2011 American media drooled with happiness at the Arab Spring, praising the protestors in Cairo. On a day when President Mubarak abdicated, CBS reporter Lara Lang was beaten, raped, and nearly killed by reveling protestors. While seizing her, many yelled, "She's an Israeli. She's a Jew. Kill her." They did their best to do so. It did not matter that she was neither Israeli nor Jewish. But she was Western. Soon after Mubarak stepped down, attacks on Christian churches in Egypt increased, as did the killings of the Coptic Christian minority. Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood grows in strength, demands abrogation of the treaty with Israel, and the extermination of Jews. Is this what freedom means to Muslims? Spencer shows that freedom means the imposition of Sharia law by those who follow the Koran. According to that law, no new church can be built. The role of religious minorities was so oppressive that the Christian majorities in the Middle East, have all dwindled over centuries of persecution. And that persecution is rising with the spring. President Obama praised the Arab Spring. As sharia law spreads with that Spring, he should watch out. According to that law, the penalty for apostasy is death. Those who leave Islam should be killed. Indeed, Spencer tells of a convention of Muslims who converted to Christianity in Virginia where security was high and many dared not give their real names. They fear imposition of the death penalty by Muslims in America to enforce sharia law! And according to some school records in Indonesia, the young Obama was listed as a Muslim. In Western nations there are more reports of honor killings by parents or relatives, when a young gal either refuses to wear head scarves or has a boy friend who may not be Muslim. When the Koran demands stoning an adultress, killing a homosexual, killing an apostate, maiming thieves, allowing the husband to beat his wives, etc. one must first observe the hatred expressed in the Koran. One must also view the centuries of persecution experienced by minorities under Muslim nations. The Zoroastrians of Persia, were persecuted so severely by the Muslims that many fled to India, where as Parsis, they continue as a small minority. Jihad is not an illusion, it is a duty commanded by the Koran. Some say this is only spiritual. They delude themselves and dilute Islam. Muhammad was a spiritual leader, but he was a military leader also; a conqueror; the first to enforce sharia law. Also around June 23, 2011, reports emerged that Delta Airlines may now inquire to prevent flying Jewish passengers to Saudi Arabia. Passengers who bring Bibles or wear crosses may have them confiscated upon arrival in Arabia, but will the American company, Delta, now do the probing of who is a Jew? And bar those whom they deem Jewish on such flights? Spencer rightly warns us of the policy of appeasement we have followed. It is leading to the end of free speech, the end of human rights, and the end of Western values altogether. Some demand a mosque near the old World Trade Center. Where are the churches in Saudi Arabia? The Koran and many Muslims demand that their religion receive preference above all others. Spencer's Guide to Islam has proved to be prescient. One hopes more will read it to prevent further appeasement, further jihadist terror, further erosion of Western civilization.

In this timely, hot button book, Robert Spencer examines the motivation and goals of, not necessarily, just the terrorists alone but fellow extremists and, by association, all Muslims in general. He claims there is a substantial quantity of misinformation being disseminated about Islam, some officially and some by apologists. Islam, which, translates into surrender, appears to be aptly named since there was plenty of surrendering going on among Islam's perceived enemies in the first hundred and fifty years of the religion. That's when aggressive, ruthless armies of the Prophet Muhammad, poured out of Arabia, spreading the nascent religion across a swath of Africa and Asia from the Atlantic Ocean to India. Later Indonesia and parts of India, Thailand, China, Malaysia and the Philippines were added. The victims of this onslaught were give three options: surrender and convert to Islam, surrender and become a dhimmi (a second-class citizen subject to onerous taxation) or death. This area now contains some one point two billion Muslims, which Spencer claims are all potential enemies of the rest of the inhabitants of the globe. The reasoning is that the seeds of confrontation are intertwined within the fabric of Islam, through the Muslim holy book and he cites various passages from the Qur'an to substantiate his theory. At the head of these passages is Jihad, which means struggle. The struggle, according to Spencer is to struggle against the infidels (non-believers) to achieve a position of preeminence where Islam reigns supreme. We all know that this is what bin Laden wants but it's been widely reported that this view is a perversion of Islam. According to Spencer, this is straight out of the Qur'an and the perversion is that this information is being withheld from the public, ostensibly to not engender additional angst with John Q. Public. Even mainstream Muslim's seem to have trouble coming to grips that their holy book is the basis of so much terrorism and could be so inconsistent. Other passages that should be of concern to Westerners are the traditions of deceit and duplicity. Muslims should not befriend infidels and it's expected that they should lie to them (but not Muslims). If they do befriend an infidel, it should only be to gain an advantage and any agreements with infidels are again, to gain an advantage and if no longer needed, should be discarded. No wonder Israel cannot get a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Spencer also takes a cursory look at the Crusades. He states that, although they appear to have been a waste of time and manpower, they keep the Muslims at bay for almost two hundred years. Spencer believes this gave the Europeans just enough time to build their strength and technology to hold their own when the Islamic hordes, once again set their sights there. Even so, there are large pockets of Muslims left over from Jihadists incursions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania and Spain. It is Spencer's contention that without the Crusades we might all be on our knees five times a day facing Mecca. However, that still might happen since an estimated fifteen million Muslim immigrants, with more daily, have inundated Europe. As we've all seen on the news recently with bombings in London and Madrid and riots in France, these immigrants can be problematic, but they also could become a fifth column. Conclusion The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) is the kind of book that can get under your skin if you let it. I'm sure it's accurate and factual and in comparison to other similar books I've read, specifically, about the plight of Muslim women, it backed what I had previously read. However, it seems to me, to be written with a conservative slant. It seems to highlight the worst of Islam, giving only perfunctory concessions to other views. The fact that Regnery Publishing, a well-known right wing publisher, published the book reinforces that feeling. As for the author, Robert Spencer, he did a good job of presenting his case in a fluid, easily understandable and readable style. I personally believe what he wrote but many would feel it wasn't balanced. He is obviously well versed on the subject of the book, providing the chapter/verse in the Qur'an, wherever he paraphrases a passage. He has a thorough knowledge of the subject and puts his views forward in a believable method. In addition, he provides many interesting sidebars where there are comparisons of the teachings of Muhammad and Jesus, quotes from historic figures, Books You're Not Supposed to Read and Just Like Today segments. Spencer makes several good points, such as saying our war on terror is incorrectly named, terror being a tactic. He says the enemy is the Jihadists and the war should be so named. I also got a kick out of Spencer's term for outrageous, seventy-two virgins in heaven Muslim belief. He called it bordello paradise. Frankly, if you are looking for some good news about the Muslims, this book is not for you, unless you consider learning more about their downside, good news. The bottom line, according to Spencer, is their can be no long-term peaceful co-existence with the Muslim society unless they modify the aggressive tenants of the Qur'an. Don't hold your breath.

This book reveals pretty much everything that most people don't know about Islam. Historically the Crusades were a response to Islam's expansionism. It is an easy read, much like the PIGt American History, it provides much of the foundation and basic facts that most people do not know. Mr Bold, obviously didn't read the book, because if the book was incorrect in any factual way, he would have pointed it out. Mr. Bold is just having a PC knee jerk. I would like to point out that the Quran actually commands Muslims to fight. Such verses as: Qur'an 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission." Qur'an 8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)." These verses are just a bit of why there will always be Muslim terror. Anyone who sits down and actually studies the verses will find verses such as the ones above that call for world domination. This is why nearly 100% of violence in the world is Islamic based. This includes: -1 Million Christians murdered in the Sudan. -400 school children in Russia. -Thousands of Christians in Indonesia and E. Timor. -Spain's Bombings -The UK Underground bombings. -9/11 which costed 3,000 lives -US embassy bombings in 2 African nations. -The bombing of the USS Cole. -The murder of Van Gogh's descendant by a Muslim. -The killing of Missionaries in the Phillipines. -The attacks of Muslims in trying to conquer the Phillipines. -The Black Hawk Down Incident. -The violence in Kosovo was from Muslims trying to conquer that nation and turn it to an Islamic State. -Attacks in India by Muslims from Pakistan. Little known fact: All Palestinian Suicide bombers are Muslim, but 1/3 of the Palestinians population is Christian. While many would say that this represents only a limited ammount of Muslims, I would suggest reading this verse: Muslim:C34B20N4668 "The Messenger said: `Anybody who equips a warrior going to fight in the Way of Allah is like one who actually fights. And anybody who looks after his family in his absence is also like one who actually fights." There is much proof that this it the position that is being taken. In reference I would suggest reading the book, Infiltration by Paul Sperry. This is a good follow up book after reading this introduction. Sperry points out that 8 in 10 Mosques are actually ran by Saudi Arabian extremists either directly or indirectly. He also points out that nearly all the reading material at these mosques are extreme in their position, including the call for destruction of Israel. The violence of Islam has been on going since the founding of the religion. -Mecca was conquered, it didn't convert by choice. -Palestine was Conquered. -Egypt was Conquered and the books in the Libary at Alexandria that was there were burned, except Aristotle, after it rebuilt from the original sad distruction by Christians. -Spain was violently conquered and France was invaded at the beginning of the Middle Ages. -Turkey (which was Muslim) killed a million Armineans. -Yugoslavia was invaded. This is facts that this book reveals that are not known by the general public. Another myth exposed is the myth that Islam means Peace, it actually means "Submission", which I would ask Mr. Bold to reconcile this meaning of Submission with his idea of it only a limited ammount of people twisting their Scripture. Finally, I strongly suggest this book. It is an outstanding work for the person who does not enjoy reading heavy books or does not have the time to read a book doctorial work. If you enjoy this book and decide to read more about the doctrinal topic of this subject, I would suggest: Prophet of Doom by Craig Winn. You can purchase the book here at Amazon.com or google search for it, since it has been published freely online.

It is always dangerous and often misleading to totally identify individuals with the background they are raised against. Within every human group, be it a small tribe or a large civilization, there are factions, different points of view, etc. But it is clearly a fact that one's environment -physical as well as cultural- has an impact on one's view of life and the world. Islam has had many different expressions throughout its history, but certainly it has had also a tight guideline in the form of the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad, a sinister figure whose biography is most revealing about the character of the religion he singlehandedly founded. Now, how can you tell if and when a cultural aggregate of teachings is "superior" over others? The answer is hard to find looking at their intrinsic merits: what they say. But it is easier when one looks at the concrete results that cultural aggregate, in this case a religion, has brought upon its followers. And the case is, the civilizations that sprung from Christianity have done much better than those brought about by Islam. And let me say that I am no practitioner of any religion. My view results from a simple observation of the economic, political and social conditions of each. While it is very true that Christianity has also turned out to be bigot, violent, cruel, and opressive, one trait distinguishes it from Islam: change. At the time of Reformation, Catholicism, the dominant form of Christianity, had become a paralyzing force, even a retrograde one. The Reformation liberated people and ideas from the tight grasp of the Church, and opened a path for continual change. Even the Catholic Church, in spite of itself, has developed into something different and necessarily more -if not totally- atuned to social, economic and technological advances. Not so the case with Islam, which has stagnated and even retreated in ideological terms. Bernard Lewis, one of the leading scholars on Islam, has a very good and slim book entitled precisely: "What went wrong?", where he explained the historical situations that led to stagnation. In this timely and assertive book, Robert Spencer dispels many clouds and goes back to explaining why and how it is that Islam is NOT a religion of peace and tolerance, but much the other way around. And of course that is not to say that every Muslim is a destructive individual, but only that the framework of thought within which they operate is conducive to intolerance, stagnation, dependence and well, as the meaning of Islam declares it: "Islam" means "submission". It is not to be bigot to acknowledge that there is something very wrong with Islam itself, and that the Christian world has developed into a largely secular, free, prosperous arena for the individual. The Renaissance, the Reformation, Illustration, etc., gave way to a civilization where debate and dissent were not only permitted, but also encouraged. Islam never experienced similar conditions. Hatred, envy, desperation, characterize today all of Islam's teachings and messages. Spencer quotes many instances where Islam is revealed as a religion of backwardness and bigotry. Facts are facts. Oh, and had it not been for the Crusades, a defensive strategy aimed at recovering the old theatre of Jewish, Hellenistic, and Christian cultures, violently subdued by Islam, the siege of Vienna would have taken place centuries before it did, in 1683. It would have taken place before Europe had professional armies, and today we would not visit Paris and its grand mosque.

This book was extremely helpful for gaining insight into the TRUE nature of Islam, its teachings and mandates. All claims are supported by references to Islamic sources, so its not like the author wrote this using sources that are biased against Islam. I got this book while in college (25 years ago) when I started international studies with a focus on Islam. My professor provided materials that were obviously pro-Islam, and I would have swallowed a lot of the indoctrination had I not gotten this book. Thank you Robert Spencer! I've know for a long time!

Zahra Maladan is an educated woman who edits a women's magazine in Lebanon. She is also a mother, who undoubtedly loves her son. She has ambitions for him, but they are different from those of most mothers in the West. She wants her son to become a suicide bomber. At the recent funeral for the assassinated Hezbollah terrorist Imad Moughnaya -- the mass murderer responsible for killing 241 marines in 1983 and more than 100 women, children and men in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994 -- Ms. Maladan was quoted in the New York Times giving the following warning to her son: "if you're not going to follow the steps of the Islamic resistance martyrs, then I don't want you." [Worshippers of Death] Zahra Maladan represents a dramatic shift in the way we must fight to protect our citizens against enemies who are sworn to kill them by killing themselves. The traditional paradigm was that mothers who love their children want them to live in peace, marry and produce grandchildren. Women in general, and mothers in particular, were seen as a counterweight to male belligerence. The picture of the mother weeping as her son is led off to battle -- even a just battle -- has been a constant and powerful image. Now there is a new image of mothers urging their children to die, and then celebrating the martyrdom of their suicidal sons and daughters by distributing sweets and singing wedding songs. More and more young women -- some married with infant children -- are strapping bombs to their (sometimes pregnant) bellies, because they have been taught to love death rather than life. Look at what is being preached by some influential Islamic leaders: "We are going to win, because they love life and we love death," said Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. He has also said: "[E]ach of us lives his days and nights hoping more than anything to be killed for the sake of Allah." Shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden told a reporter: "We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us." "The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death," explained Afghani al Qaeda operative Maulana Inyadullah. Sheik Feiz Mohammed, leader of the Global Islamic Youth Center in Sydney, Australia, preached: "We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech: "It is the zenith of honor for a man, a young person, boy or girl, to be prepared to sacrifice his life in order to serve the interests of his nation and his religion." How should Western democracies fight against an enemy whose leaders preach a preference for death? The two basic premises of conventional warfare have long been that soldiers and civilians prefer living to dying and can thus be deterred from killing by the fear of being killed; and that combatants (soldiers) can easily be distinguished from noncombatants (women, children, the elderly, the infirm and other ordinary citizens). These premises are being challenged by women like Zahra Maladan. Neither she nor her son -- if he listens to his mother -- can be deterred from killing by the fear of being killed. They must be prevented from succeeding in their ghoulish quest for martyrdom. Prevention, however, carries a high risk of error. The woman walking toward the group of soldiers or civilians might well be an innocent civilian. A moment's hesitation may cost innocent lives. But a failure to hesitate may also have a price. Late last month, a young female bomber was shot as she approached some shops in central Baghdad. The Iraqi soldier who drew his gun hesitated as the bomber, hands raised, insisted that she wasn't armed. The soldier and a shop owner finally opened fire as she dashed for the stores; she was knocked to the ground but still managed to detonate the bomb, killing three and wounding eight. Had the soldier and other bystanders not called out a warning to others -- and had they not shot her before she could enter the shops -- the death toll certainly would have been higher. Had he not hesitated, it might have been lower. As more women and children are recruited by their mothers and their religious leaders to become suicide bombers, more women and children will be shot at -- some mistakenly. That too is part of the grand plan of our enemies. They want us to kill their civilians, who they also consider martyrs, because when we accidentally kill a civilian, they win in the court of public opinion. One Western diplomat called this the "harsh arithmetic of pain," whereby civilian casualties on both sides "play in their favor." Democracies lose, both politically and emotionally, when they kill civilians, even inadvertently. As Golda Meir once put it: "We can perhaps someday forgive you for killing our children, but we cannot forgive you for making us kill your children." Civilian casualties also increase when terrorists operate from within civilian enclaves and hide behind human shields. This relatively new phenomenon undercuts the second basic premise of conventional warfare: Combatants can easily be distinguished from noncombatants. Has Zahra Maladan become a combatant by urging her son to blow himself up? Have the religious leaders who preach a culture of death lost their status as noncombatants? What about "civilians" who willingly allow themselves to be used as human shields? Or their homes as launching pads for terrorist rockets? The traditional sharp distinction between soldiers in uniform and civilians in nonmilitary garb has given way to a continuum. At the more civilian end are babies and true noncombatants; at the more military end are the religious leaders who incite mass murder; in the middle are ordinary citizens who facilitate, finance or encourage terrorism. There are no hard and fast lines of demarcation, and mistakes are inevitable -- as the terrorists well understand. We need new rules, strategies and tactics to deal effectively and fairly with these dangerous new realities. We cannot simply wait until the son of Zahra Maladan -- and the sons and daughters of hundreds of others like her -- decide to follow his mother's demand. We must stop them before they export their sick and dangerous culture of death to our shores...the battle rages on...lets hope for the Arab spring?

I just finished reading the book, and it’s a rare read that kept me captivated from the first page to the last. The topics, each one more compelling than the last, only deepened my interest and understanding. This book deserves so much respect for its depth of research. It isn’t just an enjoyable read; it’s a serious call to awareness. I feel so strongly about it that I want everyone I care about to read it, to gain a solid foundation in this complex subject. Robert Spencer’s work calls for readers to look beyond headlines and to take this topic seriously. Books like this demand thoughtful engagement. My hope is that readers will approach it with respect for the hard work that went into it—and with a readiness to keep exploring the topic further. In short, if you’re someone who questions the ideology of jihad, this book is well worth your time. It’s compelling to the end, and I doubt you’ll put it down unfinished. But don’t stop here—let this book be the beginning of your journey to understand, prepare, and engage with this topic knowledgeably.

Like others here , I have been doing my own research on Islam & the more I read about it, the more I believe many Muslims don't know the full extent or number of war like passages contained within the Qu-ran. When I have quoted some violent passages to male Muslims, the response is always the same , denial, a cry of " it's not true " ! sadly my friends, it is true, there for you to see in black & white, the ugly truth. Many children are taught the Qu-ran, by rote in a language they do not know or understand, i e : Arabic. The same with the Immams in the UK Mosques , very few speak English, so how can the young second/third generation Muslims discuss anything with these leaders ? Well , here is a book they could & should read , a book which explains Muhammads words & deeds in plain outspoken English. With direct quotes, & comparable ones from the Bible. It cleverly includes the Crusades & demolishes any doubt about why they were fought, Robert Spencer has given the full picture & posed many questions for western governments, let's hope they are going to answer them , ASAP. He rings alarm bells for the PC brigade too, let them wake up from their torpor & see how much damage they have done & continue to do. !!! This is a book well worth buying , it's a very easy, if disturbing read.

very good book and seller

This is a book that is clear and concise. It cites many examples and references to support its conclusions. I came away with a much clearer understanding of the developing situation in the West.

Very good book about the Islamic totalitarian religion. Just look at the cause of Lebanon revolution who destroyed that country ... and apply this to western Europe in 30-40 years