Just for knowing, Stealth Jihad should be required reading in every one of our nation's public schools. Here, Fjordman reviews Spencer's groundbreaking work.
Muslims sometimes try to calm non-Muslims by saying that they "misunderstand" the term Jihad, which doesn't necessarily mean armed struggle. This is technically speaking true, but in a way this makes matters worse, not better. Jihad includes ideological, cultural, demographic, diplomatic, psychological and economic warfare, and above all disinformation to confuse infidels about the threat they face. Just because there is a (temporary) absence of violence does not mean that there is an absence of Jihad. Robert Spencer understand this very well, and explains how Islamic organizations aiming to undermine the American political system are now quietly infiltrating society at all levels, posing as "civil rights groups" or "anti-racism activists," a powerful tool in a country with an already bloated anti-discrimination industry. Even the Muslim Brotherhood, which has a clear and stated agenda of destroying Western civilization, is often treated as a "moderate" group, which only goes to prove how meaningless the term "moderate Islam" really is. Stealth Jihad, page 29-30:
"Legal endeavors, civil rights initiatives, media campaigns – all these and more are the weapons of the stealth jihadists, chosen precisely because without other pieces of the puzzle, they don't appear to be weapons at all, or part of any cumulative effort. The bottom line is this: there is a concerted effort in America today by Islamic organizations to further a series of initiatives that are outwardly quite different in their stated purposes, and are being advanced by different groups of people. However, they are all geared toward the same set of goals: to encourage Americans to downplay anti-terror initiatives, accommodate Muslim practices, and make special exceptions for Islamic law – while being cowed by cries of 'bigotry' into dropping all resistance to these phenomena. The result, if things continue in this vein, would be an America completely subjugated under Islamic law – just the way the Brotherhood memorandum envisions it. An America in which non-Muslims must humble themselves before Muslims, not daring to say or do anything that they find offensive. This stealth jihad is advancing steadily and quietly, and most Americans have no idea it is happening at all." Spencer goes on to explain how Islamic law conflicts with American concepts of liberty in every sense of the word. Page 48-49:
"[S]haria entails the negation of freedom, for the only freedom that sharia recognizes is the freedom to obey Islamic law, a 'freedom' enforced by the power of the state. And many Muslims today are working to advance that notion of 'freedom' in America, though not by means of terrorism. As the September 11 attacks retreat farther and farther into memory, and politicians and public officials increasingly revert to what is now known as a September 10 mentality, the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic groups in service of the stealth jihad remain active across the country. As we shall see, many of them are furthering various initiatives for 'Muslim accommodation,' often under the guise of civil rights, that are in fact far removed from the spirit of American constitutionalism and the U.S. civil rights movement that they disingenuously invoke as inspiration. In reality, they are part of this 'grand jihad' aimed at destroying U.S. constitutional government and establishing an Islamic autocracy in this country. Distracted by foreign wars and the prospect of domestic terror attacks, Americans pay little heed to the true agents of intolerance in their midst. The stealth jihad advances largely unopposed because it is largely unrecognized."
As Raphael Israeli, Professor of Islamic, Middle Eastern and Chinese history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, explains in his book The Islamic Challenge in Europe, , the policy of exporting democracy to the Islamic world is not likely to achieve positive results if the "fundamentalists" gain power. Page 221:
"Democracy, in spite of all its drawbacks, was found to be best fitted for Western culture, but no one can determine what is adequate for others. Any civilization ultimately gets the regime it deserves, for tyranny has been more of a norm in Muslim countries than otherwise. If this is their domestic choice, or as long as they do not rise against it, it should not concern outsiders. Where the West should be concerned is the outward conduct of the regimes in Muslim countries. When they adopt policies that threaten their neighbors, intimidate them or harm their interests, and those interests coincide with the West's, then the latter has the right, indeed the obligation, to retaliate in order to check Muslim expansionism, remove its threats and secure its own and its allies' interests."
As I have demonstrated in my essay The Importance of Cicero in Western Thought, Roman secular law never had much influence in the Islamic world. Muslims turned down Greek political texts which included descriptions of systems in which men ruled themselves according to man-made laws. This was considered blasphemous by Muslims, as laws are made by Allah and rule belongs to his representatives.
There was no institution similar to the English Parliament in the Islamic world, nor was there ever developed a concept similar to Montesquieu's (1689-1755 AD) separation of powers, and the political writings of Aristotle, Cicero and others were aggressively rejected. All of the elements underlying the American political system were rejected by Muslims before the USA had even been created. If Americans had remembered that, they might have been less eager to export their political system to Muslim countries. They might also have remembered that the idea that "democracy" is 100% good and the only valid political system is naive. It is a development of the period after the French Revolution and was not shared by serious thinkers prior to this, including the American Founding Fathers. Americans should study closely what is happening with Muslim immigration in Europe. Stealth Jihad, page 270:
"On October 13, 1999, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Izmir, Turkey, Giuseppe Germano Bernardini, warned the Synod of European Bishops about a 'clear program' among Muslims for the 're-conquest' of Europe. 'During an official meeting on Islamic-Christian dialogue,' he wrote, 'an authoritative Muslim person, speaking to the Christians participating, at one point said very calmly and assuredly: 'Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you.' This domination, he continued, has already begun – 'with the 'petro-dollars,' used not to create work in the poor North African or Middle Eastern countries, but to build mosques and cultural centers in Christian countries with Islamic immigration, including Rome, the center of Christianity. How can we ignore in all of this a clear program of expansion and re-conquest?' Bernardini also recorded one Muslim's piquant expression of Islamic supremacism: 'During another Islamic-Christian meeting, always organized by Christians, a Christian participant publicly asked the Muslims present why they did not organize at least once a meeting of this kind. The Muslim authority present answered the following words: 'Why should we? You have nothing to teach us and we have nothing to learn.'"
As Robert Spencer warns (same page), "Through massive immigration and official dhimmitude from European leaders, Muslims are accomplishing today what they have tried but failed to do for over a millennium: conquer Europe."
I usually refrain from criticizing the USA because very often European politicians are even worse, but frankly, if the United States should be legitimately criticized for anything, it should be for its pro-Islamic policies, not for its non-existent anti-Islamic policies. The American political elites of both parties support continued Islamization at home and abroad. The Saudis have American leaders in their pockets.
What most Americans don't understand is that they are not hated because they are perceived as being aggressive; they are despised because Muslims perceive them as being weak. As Machiavelli indicated in The Prince, you can live with having enemies as long as they respect you. Muslims always have been and - unless you are willing to convert to Islam - always will be enemies. Even after conversion they would probably attack those who are Muslims in the "wrong" way. Muslims are currently not equally aggressive against China, despite the fact that Chinese men are pig-eating infidels and Chinese women are unveiled whores. This is because Muslims respect them more than they respect Westerners, and we give them no reason to change that view.
As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch asks:: "What would the rich Arabs do if the Western world decided to seize their property in the West as the assets of enemy aliens, just as was done to the property owned not only by the German government, but by individual Germans, during World War II? And what would they do if they were to be permanently deprived of easy access to Western medical care?"
In my own book Defeating Eurabia, my general policy recommendation is to advocate containment. The crucial point is to stress that Islam cannot be reformed nor reconciled with our way of life. There is no moderate Islam. There can be moderate Muslims, but they can turn into Jihadists tomorrow or can lie to deceive the infidels, which is widely practiced in Islam. There is no way for us to know. Those who want to understand this can read my online essay about "moderate Islam" as well as the essay "Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims Islam isn't merely incompatible with Western civilization; Islam is incompatible with any civilization worthy of the name, Eastern or Western.
There are undoubtedly those who would dismiss my statement that there is no moderate Islam as ignorance and extremism. To them, I would like to say the following: The real extremists are those who, despite 1400 years of evidence to the contrary from Thailand to Canada, still cling on to the idea that Islam can coexist peacefully and on equal terms with everybody else. Jared Diamond in his bestselling book Guns, Germs, and Steel has some valid points, but his greatest flaw is his inability to explain how the Greater Middle East went from being a global center of civilization, which it was in ancient times, to a global center of anti-civilization. This was not caused by smallpox or because zebras are more difficult to domesticate than water buffaloes. It was caused by Islam. And the destruction continues. Lebanon was a civilized country only because it had a Christian majority, but is now rapidly descending into the Islamic abyss. While Beirut was once known as the Paris of the Middle East, perhaps Paris will soon be known as the Beirut of Europe.
Islam has been in India for a millennium, has wiped out Buddhism in much of the continent and caused the death of tens of millions of Hindus. After a thousand years, despite the fact that Muslims enjoy more political liberty in the Republic of India than in the Muslim neighboring countries, they still blow bombs. Indians have waited a thousand years for a moderate Islam, and they are still being killed. Is that enough? What about the Serbs? In the fourteenth century, Lazar of Serbia fought bravely and perished in the Battle of Kosovo against the Turks, yet now Muslims in Kosovo are desecrating churches and being awarded a state by NATO for their efforts. What about the Copts in Egypt and the other Christians in the Middle East and North Africa? They have waited for fourteen centuries. Is that enough? What is next? A nuclear bomb going off in Tel Aviv, London, Rome, New York or Washington D.C.? How many more people have to die, and how many more countries have to be destroyed before we can face the fact that the problem is Islam itself, not a few extremists?
Frankly, the burden of proof is on those who claim that there is a moderate Islam. How come nobody has seen it over the past 1400 years, and where is it today? Can they even describe how this supposedly "moderate Islam" is supposed to look like, and outline the ideas of serious and influential thinkers who advocate a viable reform path? I have read the works of many of the so-called reformists, and I'm not impressed. I have long criticized the policies of President George W. Bush in exporting "democracy" to Islamic countries, an idea which makes no sense whatsoever and will be remembered in the future as a glaring example of ideological overstretch. Rarely has more money, lives and effort been wasted on a completely meaningless project. Meanwhile, Muslim immigration continues unabated throughout the Western world. The very minimum that should have been done after the attacks of September 11 2001 was to halt Muslim immigration, to treat Islam as a political ideology at odds with the American Constitution, to give no quarters to organizations such as CAIR and to view the Muslim Brotherhood as mortal enemies. Until Muslim immigration has been permanently ended, those who were murdered in 2001 died in vain. Nothing less will do.
On page 278, Spencer includes policy recommendations for the United States: Enforce existing laws against organizations deliberately attempting to undermine American liberties and the US Constitution, which is of course already illegal. Reclassify Muslim organizations that do not explicitly renounce, in word as well as in deed, any intention of replacing the American Constitution with sharia at some point in the future. If they refuse, close them down or reclassify them as political organizations and treat them accordingly. Mosques and Islamic schools should be monitored and closed when needed. Americans should also "End Muslim immigration into the United States. This is a simple matter of national security."
Last, but not least, Westerners should take pride in our own culture and re-learn our history. Frankly, there are those who would claim that even Jihad, dangerous as it is, is a secondary infection which has only managed to threaten us because the body of our civilization had already been weakened beforehand. Nowhere is this clearer than in Western media and academia, which have since the Western Cultural Revolution of the 1960s been turned into vehicles for attacking their own civilization. It will be extremely difficult to fight Islamization in an efficient manner until this situation is ended, as most people will find it difficult to properly identify the threat.
Spencer concludes his book with these words of warning, page 281-282:
"…if Americans, Westerners, and all people who are threatened by the global jihad and Islamic supremacism are not willing to stand up and fight for this cause, then all is lost. Because the jihadists are willing to go all the way – to give up their very lives – in their quest to control ours. For them, no price is too high. If fighting against jihad is too high a price for a free people, then ultimately we will have to pay a different price: the jizya – the tax specified by Qur'an 9:29 for certain non-Muslims, particularly Jews and Christians, subjugated as inferiors under the rule of Islamic sharia law. What ever happened to 'Give me liberty, or give me death?' Or 'with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor'? Will the price that the children and beneficiaries of those heroic sacrifices are willing to pay prove too high? The answer will become clear sooner than most people think."
One of the many great things about Spencer is that he is always understandable. This is far from self-evident. Even among anti-Jihadists whom I greatly admire as scholars there are those who write books that are difficult to read. Robert Spencer has that rare gift of combining impeccable scholarship – which he does have, regardless of what the professional "Islamophobia-accusers" might say – with a unique talent for explaining his subject matter to a non-specialist audience, which he does every single day at his website. I can think of very few people who are his equal in this. Stealth Jihad is heartily recommended for those who would like to understand the greatest threat we face today. I would especially recommend that you give a copy of the book to someone who still doesn't fully "get it," and believe that this is all about a few extremists.