Review: Robert Spencer, The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS, 2018

Grant Jones's picture
Submitted by Grant Jones on Tue, 2018-08-28 00:16

For many years Robert Spencer has operated Jihad Watch, which documents Islam's unrelenting war upon the civilized world. He has also written a series of books documenting the fundamental nature of Islam as violent, irrational and incompatible with Western culture. His latest book The History of Jihad from Muhammad to ISIS was published last month. It should go without saying that for decades the Fake News, Deep State and Academic Left matrix have been lying about the nature of Islam and jihad. Spencer's new book sets the record straight and will make the evaders' job even more difficult.

As the title indicates, this book is a narrative of the jihad that begin with Mohammedan cult's hijrah to Medina in 622 AD. For the next ten years Mohamed set the example of jihad that his followers would emulate for the next 1400 years. Mohamed's campaigns included unprovoked war, brigandage, murder of dissenters and ethnic cleansing:

"Abu Jahl was beheaded. The Muslim who severed the head proudly carried his trophy to Muhammad: "I cut off his head and brought it to the apostle staying, 'This is the head of the enemy of God, Abu Jahl.'" Muhammad was delighted and thanked Allah for the murder of his enemy ... Ultimately the Prophet of Islam determined that Jews and Christians would no longer be allowed in Arabia at all. "I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula," he told his companions, "and will not have any but Muslims." He gave such an order on his deathbed." (pp. 19, 44)

These are the orders and examples being faithfully followed by the "radical" or "totalitarian" Islam of ISIS and al Qaeda and the Saudi Entity. Spencer uses classical Islamic sources for his narrative on the life of Mohamed and the jihad he inspired. It is not the "enemies of Islam," but the Prophet's own followers who documented his blood-lust in the subsequent centuries of the Middle Ages.

What follows the opening chapter is a rather depressing, endless litany of the Mohammedan Cult's incessant, ruthless and brutal jihad with the rest of the world. Including in the narrative is a much needed myth-busting of the so-called multicultural paradise of Medieval Islam. The dhimmi Other would have been surprised on hearing how good they had it under the Caliphate - just as unfortunates currently living in Moslem majorities countries today are viciously suppressed per instructions in the Koran and Hadith. However, it's a sad truth that today people of civilized nations' must study this history in self-defense. For dhimmitude is what our traitorous elites have in store for us.

There are two thematic points in the book that deserve highlighting. Spencer performs an admirable service by including the jihad in India in his narrative. If anything, the Moslems were even more murderous in the sub-continent than they were in Europe. Under Islam's reign-of-terror millions of Hindus were murdered or forced to convert and thousands of temples destroyed and desecrated.

The other vital theme is the fact that treason and division within infidel ranks have always been the jihad's best ally. One such traitor in the early 8th century was Count Julian of Ceuta. According to Islamic documents, Julian made common cause with the jihad in order to exact revenge on a rival for power. His efforts helped inaugurate seven hundred years of jihad in Spain:

"Julian also met with Musa ibn Nusayr and got his approval. Then the traitor provided the Muslims with ships to carry the warriors of jihad across the strait that would not arouse the notice of any Spanish sentries." (p. 78)

Julian's treason is an example that Europe's and Spain's elites are following. According to the sources, Julian gave two of his daughters as hostages in order to obtain an alliance with the jihadists, "Julian had no problem with this and sent Tariq his two daughters; apparently, the prospect of their becoming sex slaves of a Muslim ruler didn't trouble him as much as Roderic's behavior" (p. 78). Sadly, Julian is far from unique in committing treason against civilization for some short-term gain.

The West's current ruling elite are even more depraved than Count Julian. Our rulers are facilitating the mass importation of jihad rapists and killers. They provide the evidence of their own guilt and evil on a daily basis. The Rotherham rape jihad is just the tip of the iceberg. British authorities ignored these heinous crimes for years. Frankly, this is not just a case of "politically correctness run wild." It's clear that the British traitor-elite hate the British people and have some sick affinity for Islam. The British establishment's ongoing jihad against Tommy Robinson is all the proof required for honest people.

Twenty years ago Paul Fregosi published his also excellent Jihad in the West. Almost three years before 9/11 the Baltimore Sun "reviewed" the book on 13 September 1998. It includes this gem of pure Fake News:

"Worst of all, "Jihad in the West" sends the message that we should divide the world into an Us and an Islamic Them, which is the kind of thinking guaranteed to make the world even less safe."

It was Mohammad who divided the world between the "House of Islam" and the "House of War" for all time. This division is a fundamental source for the jihad and the foundation for sharia law. Every honest person who has spent a few hours researching Islam understands this inconvenient truth. Nevertheless, the Fake News traitors keep cucking for Islam. Creatures like journolist Robert Ruby share responsibility for 9/11. They have enabled every jihad inspired murder and rape in the West that has occurred since the World Trade Center was brought down. As Spencer illustrates with many examples, treason within is always far more destructive and dangerous than the enemy without.

Buy this book in self-defense.

Original post with links here: https://militaryreviews.blogsp...

Wrong Side

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Richard -- The leftists are not the enemy. The enemy is the leftists and the rightists. But Milo, Southern, and Molyneux have essentially no clue.

Neither do you, evidently. Neither do most libertarians and Objectivists. Nothing is more pathetic, impotent, and guaranteed-to-lose than being closely associated with the right. And Milo, Southern, Molyneux, today's libertarians, and today's Objectivists are.

I understand that words

Richard Wiig's picture

I understand that words matter, Kyrel, but I don't agree with you that they are losing. If they weren't gaining ground, as in drumming up opposition to the leftist agenda, then you wouldn't hear a word against them from the leftists, or the obleftivists.


Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Richard -- I appreciate and largely agree with that, but as I said:

"The moment they start calling themselves libertarians and capitalists is the moment they become at least ten times as powerful."

"The battle for words is the battle for the fate of the world. Milo, Southern, and Molyneux are losing it."

That they don't beat their

Richard Wiig's picture

That they don't beat their chests and shout capitalist, or libertarian, really shouldn't matter to you, Kyrel. They are activists, fighting for freedom of speech, for equality before the law, for private property rights, etc, so they are your allies, regardless of how loudly they might or might not attach a label to themselves. Lauren Southern is a Christian, hardly a philosophy in line with yours, but she is still an ally. Bosch Fawstin is a capitalist, but he doesn't shout capitalist from the rooftops either. He fights for his right to draw cartoons without being murdered. Is he lessened as an ally because he doesn't shout capitalist? Of course not. The people you are criticising are actually getting a lot of people to take note of ideas and issues that they otherwise would not be thinking about. That is good.


Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Richard -- What, Milo, Southern, and Molyneux occasionally condescend to allow isolated and friendly audiences to softly call them "libertarian" and "capitalist" from time to time? That's almost meaningless. These three are universally known as "conservatives". They might as well allow themselves to be called "Nazis" or "jihadis". They aren't seriously involved in the intellectual fray. They're what Lindsay would call "intellectual dilettantes". The moment they start calling themselves libertarians and capitalists is the moment they become at least ten times as powerful.

Conservatism is a loser, failure philosophy. It always has been, it always will be. It's fundamentally the same as progressivism.

The battle for words is the battle for the fate of the world. Milo, Southern, and Molyneux are losing it.

It isn't written in stone

Richard Wiig's picture

It isn't written in stone yet, Olivia, even though there's no need to look too far back to see how far the forces of darkness have advanced, or more correctly, how far the West has fallen.

According to Wikipedia the

Richard Wiig's picture

According to Wikipedia the term was coined by Paul Gottfried, and later popularised by Richard Spencer. I don't know anything about Richard Spencer, or Gottfried. I have never seen Milo, Southern, or Molyneux eschew the terms libertarian or capitalist. I have definitely seen Molyneux praise and promote classical liberalism, so I'm really not sure where you are coming from with your claim. Is there anything that they expressly promote that is, at root, anti-freedom? I've never seen it.


Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Richard -- Richard Spencer seems to have invented the term "alt-right" in 2010 and it became popular in 2016. But post-modernists and progressives do indeed use the term to smear semi-libertarians like Stefan Molyneux, Milo, and Lauren Southern. It serves them right since they eschew the term libertarian, capitalist, classical liberal, etc. and prefer to be known as conservatives.

The battle for words is the battle for the fate of the planet.

'Identitarian' is a perjorative term....

Olivia's picture

that wimps on the right use to distinguish themselves from the so-called alt-right, because many on the alt-right understand they were delivered something by their forebears that was extraordinary - and they don't want to see it surrendered to the darkest forces that humanity has to offer. Multiculturalism is the enemy and fifth column working to undermine that extraordinary inheritance and usher in those dark forces.

Personally, I think that if Europe does not re-discover its identity: Athens, Jerusalem, Rome, Judeo-Christianity and the Enlightenment, it's simply lights out for them in a very barbaric way. For a very long time. Europe is under threat from the darkest and most aggressive religion ever invented by man: Islam. Multiculturalism is the evil that has let that disgusting religion prevail in European culture, while Europe exercises itself about the correct terminology from a position of unearned guilt: Colonialism, Slavery, White Supremacy, WWII and Genocide if more backward cultures were so unimpeachably freedom oriented. They were worse, much worse.

And now we have the term "identitarian," like looking around for solidarity within a historical identity as the inheritors of the greatest culture ever is a bad thing.

Well fuck that. Call me an Identitarian if needs must. I identify to the very depth of my bodily cells and my thinking brain that my European culture, inherited from the lights of my ancestors, delivered to me (and those I share a civilisation with despite their skin-colour) the best living conditions ever known to men and women, in the history of the entire world. Despite its flaws, it also offered us in the last two centuries science and technology, freedom of conscience, the emancipation of women and children, capitalism, religious tolerance and individual, personal happiness, which is more than can be said of any other culture on offer. Mass immigration into our civilisation stands testament to these obvious facts.

If I can't find some kind of identity within the culture of that powerful legacy... where else should I look for it?

Who are you saying favours an

Richard Wiig's picture

Who are you saying favours an ethno-state, Kyrel? The left use the term alt-right with abandon against anyone they disapprove of. But who fits the term? The genuine nazis don't fit it. They are already taken care of by the terms "fascist" and "nazi". So that leaves who? The likes of Stefan Molyneux, Milo, and Lauren Southern, who are anything but fascists and Nazis. It suits the left to lump them all together though. You could certainly call Milo, Southern, and Molyneux, stirrers, but their stirring consists of reasoned debate and the exposing of double standards and hypocrisy. They do get under peoples skin, but so what. It is the stirrers on the left who are the violent facsists. They use no reasoned debate; just evasion and thuggery. I suspect the term alt-right was manufactured by someone on the left as a weapon against their opponents.


Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Olivia -- Don't they call themselves this? Or else "white nationalists"? Don't they favor an "ethno-state"? I'm not sure what any of these terms mean. Neither are they. These foolish and malevolent cucksters use such strange language...

Intellectually, they plan to save Western Civilization, America, white people, capitalism, and freedom advocacy of racism, sexism, and fascism. Thru throwing critics out of helicopters. Maybe even thru embracing updated versions of Nazism and Hitler. Sad


Olivia's picture

Objectivists and libertarians who are highly sympathetic to the alt-right don't seem to realize just how illiberal, anti-liberty, anti-American, and anti-Western the limited and malicious philosophy of the the alt-right really is

Next you'll be calling them "identitarian."

Get it!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Great review by Grant! I'm going to buy the book for sure [edit: have just bought the Kindle version]. Even if material is familiar, we must support our fellow-warriors against Islamosavagery. I'm currently re-reading Pam Geller's book. Ayn Rand's successor as "the bravest man in America"!

Familiar Truths

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Probably a great book. But I think I've read it already! Islam is a primitive and childish philosophy which just doesn't take that long to fully comprehend.

The book review by Grant Jones also seems quite good.

But it utilizes the term "cuck", which I think nowadays is pretty much an alt-right term. Objectivists and libertarians who are highly sympathetic to the alt-right don't seem to realize just how illiberal, anti-liberty, anti-American, and anti-Western the limited and malicious philosophy of the the alt-right really is. Sad

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.